th 
ἣ ΜΗ 


it 
a 
᾿ ᾿ 


Sioees 


or 


FEES 


ere 


= 


i 
al 


δὴ 
ἴῃ 


Sa 
ἢ 


2S 
p= ~~ an 
ee Sa Ss SS e ee 
SSeS = 


pes 


‘\ 


<r 


ὶ 


. 
ΠΝ 
ANIL 

i] Utes ὃ 


" 
Aen 
Ni ᾿ Hit Ai 
Sh 
δ ἘΝῚ i Ns 
Hy ii 


“5:2: 


" 


ἣν 


= 
as 


RNID SHIA isch 
SiN phn 
Wi 


cee 


= 


δ 


ἬΜΗΝ ᾿ ht 
DUNN ty 
sith tes } ah 


Ss 


= 


i ἣν 
ΗΝ 
ἧς ΗΝ 
NG SR iy 
j 
15: γ᾽ 


yr Reivuennt: 
GRASPS 


hint 

ty 

PAB 
KY 


; 
ri 
\ 


Ἢ 


SSS 


= = 


= 
— ποτ ττ 
SSS 

SS 


we 
oP, 


SSeS 


taterot 





Library of The Theological Seminary 


PRINCETON - NEW JERSEY 


DIKE 


PRESENTED BY 


Robert L. Stuart 
from the 
Addison Alexander Library 
1860 





Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2009 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


https://archive.org/details/criticalcommenta00Osamp 





A CRITICAL COMMENTARY 


ON THE 


EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 






Μὴ. ἡ ’ ᾿ νι . ere 
re he Ab 
»; ἀν δ᾿ "Ὁ ἵ , ia 
kL ia Γ ᾿ ΓΝ 
Pi i. eat ve 
᾿ i ἡ, ¥ . { ; 
‘ ao.” ψ ΟΝ ἱ 












ry " ὶ iy 
Pier | | ν 
᾿ ‘i 





Py RM ae of ADFT iy ὁ 
τὰ " ν Puree wees r 
Bia eee ye 4 ὼ i as ὝΨΗ ae 
ΓΝ ath way OL Wate 
a sh pee a ‘ δὺν es 
Haken agate | 
Ket σύν κα ἥν. ἅν edt a @ δ ὦ 
ψφῳ Ἦν J 
i A a ‘sedahc igh ib © tig icra 


e™ 


CRITICAL COMMENTARY 


ON THE 


EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


BY 


FRANCIS sY SAMPSON, Ἰ) 


PROFESSOR OF ORIENTAL LITERATURE IN THE UNION THEOLOGICAL 
SEMINARY, PRINCE EDWARD, VA. 


EDITED FROM THE MANUSCRIPT NOTES OF THE AUTHOR, 


BY 


ROBERT L. DABNEY, D.D. 


NEW YORK: 
ROBERT CARTER & BROTHERS, 
BROADWAY. 


M.DCCO.LYVI. 
oe 


Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1856, 
By ROBERT CARTER & BROTHERS, 


In the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the United States for the Southern 
District of New York. 


JOHN F. TROW, 
PRINTER AND STEREOTYPER, 
Nos. 877 & 879 Broadway. 


EDITOR’S PREFACE. 


My colleague, Dr. Sampson, at his lamented death, left 
in manuscript a Commentary on the Greek text of the Epis- 
tle to the Hebrews, the fruit of many years’ careful study. 
It was prepared at first as notes for his lectures to his classes, 
in the routine of his duties as a professor. Having received 
the successive additions of his studies and reviews for twelve 
or fifteen years, and having been for the third time re-written 
with unusual care and accuracy by his own hand, it had 
reached such size and completeness that it was his purpose 
to prepare it for the press and commit it to the public the 
summer of the year in which he died. Many things con- 
curred to make the friends of his reputation and of Zion 
unwilling that this, the only fruit of his eminent talents, 
industry, and learning, which was mature enough for the 
press, should die with him. It was known that he had ex- 
pended his critical abilities and industry peculiarly on this 
Epistle. The second time he re-wrote his notes, thirty hours 
of research and study were expended on each of the short 


portions (of twelve to twenty verses), which he gave his 


vi EDITOR’S PREFACE. 


class for a lesson. But the copy which was left at his death 
was the still more perfect result of a third review. The uni- 
form testimony of his pupils has been, that these notes, as ex- 
plained by him orally, formed a more judicious and instruc- 
tive commentary on ‘the Hebrews’ than any which were 
accessible to them; and they have concurred in urgently 
requesting their-publication. While several able and learned 
commentaries on this Epistle exist in the Latin and German, 
and even in the English languages, it is the.common remark 
that there is no one which meets the views and wants of 
Presbyterian scholars, in its orthodoxy, critical ability, learn- 
ing, and good judgment. Moved by these reasons, I have 
yielded to the requests of Dr. Sampson’s friends and of many 
others, and have undertaken to prepare for publication the 
materials which he left. 

Justice to the reader, to Dr. Sampson’s memory, and to 
myself, requires that I shall state with entire candour the 
condition of those materials, and the nature of my agency in 
their publication. The notes left by the author are in part 
a fully written commentary, and in part a full and accurate 
syllabus, together occupying two hundred and forty-five 
manuscript pages. The whole Jntroduction, all the Analy- 
ses of sections, and many of the more interesting and impor- 
tant discussions of the Commentary itself, such as that on 
chap. 6: 4-6, were written out fully. All of these I have 
copied verbatim ; so that the reader is certain of possessing, 
in those parts, the author’s meaning in his own words. The 
remainder, which bears rather the character of a full syllabus 
than of a regular composition, I have expanded in my own 


words, but always with the ruling purpose of simply unfold- 


EDITOR’S PREFACE. Vil 


ing the intent of the author as he designed it to be appre-’ 
hended. Not only are the notes which indicate the train of 

thoughts faithfully followed, but the references given by 
Dr. Sampson along with those notes, are employed in the 
manner indicated by him. So that in those passages where 
the words are my own, the discussion is strictly the author’s. 
In addition to this, I have endeavoured to conform all such 
passages in style, and in spirit and temper, to his. Any thing 
which has seemed to me an omission, I have not presumed to 
supply, any farther than to give so much of amplification to 
the meaning which I found distinctly indicated in the notes 
and references, as was necessary to make it intelligible to 
the reader. This is an assurance which the critical scholar 
will perhaps feel more conducive to his satisfaction in read- 
ing the work, than any other which I could give him. If 

any one should desire any other warrant that he is truly 
reading Dr. Sampson’s work and not mine, I can only give 
it by saying, that I feel sure I have, in every case, appre- 
hended and stated the author’s meaning, not indeed as well, 
but substantially such as he would have unfolded it, had he 
lived to edit his own book. The grounds of this assurance 
are, first, the fulness, excellence, accuracy, and perspicuity 
of his notes, even in their briefest and minutest passages and 
citations, and the steady guidance derived from the Analyses, 
which, as I have said, are all wholly of his own composition; 
and next, my long and intimate acquaintance with the be- 
loved author, and with his modes of thought and exegetical 
opinions; the opportunity which I enjoyed, as his pupil, of 

hearing these notes expounded by him orally with the great- 


est fulness, in a course of critical lectures on the Epistle, 


viii EDITOR’S PREFACE. 


and my habitude of using similar notes as the guides to my 
own lectures. With this assurance as to the substance of the 
discussions, the reader must judge for himself how far the 
value of the work has been diminished by the style I have 
used in those parts which were not sufficiently unfolded by 
the author. 

But whatever may be the injury which this work has 
sustained from the premature death of its author, it gains 
this small advantage, that I am permitted to assert his emi- 
nent fitness for such a task, in terms which his modesty 
would forbid to himself and friends, if he were yet alive. 
His general education at the University of Virginia was ex- 
tensive, long continued, and thorough; and was pursued 
with admirable diligence and method in study. It is the 
concurrent testimony of those who knew him at the Univer- 
sity and elsewhere, that there was no better educated man in 
our commonwealth. The last sixteen years of his life were 
devoted with equal zeal and perseverance to the study of the 
various departments of Biblical literature ; and during nearly 
the whole of this time he studied and expounded the Epistle 
to the Hebrews, along with other parts of the Old and New 
Testaments. His knowledge of both the Greek and Hebrew 
languages was accurate and profound, had been extended by 
study in Europe, and had set him in the front rank of in- 
structors in these departments. The extensive research and 
laborious study which he expended for many years on the 
Epistle explained in the present work, have been already 
indicated. His Commentary has had a longer suppression, 
and more frequent revisals, than were enjoined by Horace 


on his brother poets, in his well-known rules. Not only his 


EDITOR’S PREFACE. ix 


learning and diligence, but the qualities of his mind, emi- 
nently qualified him to be a profound and reliable expositor 
of Scripture. “Dr. Sampson could not be called a genius. 
He was what is far better, a man of high talent. His mind 
presented nothing that was salient or astonishing. But this 
was not so much because there was not power, as because it 
was power symmetrically developed. His was just one of 
those excellent minds which grow most and longest by good 
cultivation. In wide and adventurous range, his speculative 
powers were not equal to those of some other men; but in 
power of correct analysis, in soundness of judgment and 
logical perspicuity, he was superior to all we have ever 
known except a very few. Indeed, when a speculative sub- 
ject was fully spread out before his mind for consideration, 
his conclusions seemed to be guided by a penetration and 
justness of thought almost infallible. This consideration 
was deliberate, and his decision was very rarely expressed 
with haste, or even with promptitude. Hence, his writings 
and conversation never exhibited any of that paradox, or 
that bold novelty and dangerous originality, which are too 
often mistaken for greatness. His talents, if they had less 
to awaken empty astonishment, were more reliable and more 
useful. It was hard for any thing sophistical or unsatisfac- 
tory to escape detection under his steady gaze. He was 
particularly free from that common fault of many minds of 
large grasp; the adopting of major propositions so large that 
they will contain the conclusion which the reasoner desires 
to derive from them ; but at the same time so shadowy, that 
they contain he knows not how much more. In his powers 


of arrangement he was superior to any man I have ever 


x EDITOR’S PREFACE. 


known. In his mind, the elements of thought seemed to 
group themselves always, and spontaneously, into the most 
philosophical order possible, with a regularity like that of 
the atoms of limpid water, when they crystallize into trans- 
parent ice.” 

Several peculiarities in the following work demand a 
word of remark. The first of these which will strike the 
learned reader, is the brevity and simplicity of the Jntroduc- 
tion. It has become fashionable with modern critical com- 
mentators to begin their labours by submitting the inspired 
author of whom they propose to treat, to a process of learned 
torture which fills, in some cases, a large part of their vol- 
umes. Dr. Sampson has, in his Introduction, gathered for 
his readers all the best fruits of wide research and mature 
deliberation, on those points which are necessary to be un- 
derstood in order to approach intelligently the study of the 
Epistle, and has expressed them without parade of learning. 
His opinion was, that when an intelligent view of those 
points was gained, for the rest, the best introduction to the 
Epistle would be the study of the Epistle itself. The relia- 
ble data for the settlement of the questions usually discussed 
in these compositions are to be chiefly found in the inspired 
text itself; so that their discussion in advance often involves 
both an inconvenient anticipation and repetition. 

It may be remarked concerning the whole work, that the 
design, both of the author and editor, has been to give the 
results, rather than the processes, of learned inquiry. The 
page will be found encumbered with comparatively few 
learned names. The opinions advocated or opposed are not 


usually accompanied by a long array of supporters from 


EDITOR’S PREFACE. xi 


among previous commentators. The conclusions reached are 
often stated with little argument, because it is supposed that 
they will be seen to be just in their own light, or that the 
obvious reasons for their stpport will suggest themselves 
to the thoughtful reader. The design has been to save 
words, and to study directness, simplicity, and a suggestive 
brevity. 

The Analyses of the sections have been the result of 
careful, protracted, and intense consideration on the part of 
the author. Every thing pertaining to the order and con- 
nexion of the ideas in them, every word used to express 
them, is intentional, and has been maturely weighed. The 
reader who would correctly apprehend the author’s meaning 
should study them intently; and to such a one they will 
prove by themselves a valuable commentary, when coupled 
with a careful consideration of the text. 

It was a peculiarity of the author’s teaching in the Scrip- 
tures, that he always attached great importance to those 
logical connectives, or conjunctions, which the Apostle Paul 
especially uses so frequently. Dr. Sampson endeavoured 
continually to induce his pupils to weigh and appreciate 
their meaning, as indicating the connexion and dependence 
of the thoughts in the mind of the inspired writer, instead of 
regarding them, with many, as but little more than aimless 
expletives, or interpreting them upon loose and fickle gram- 
matical principles. In his view, the only honest and sensi- 
ble theory for the expositor was to assume that the inspired 
writer meant something by all that he said; and that it is 
our business to endeavour to understand the whole of that 


meaning. If these connectives had not been intended to 


xii 3 EDITOR’S PREFACE. 


convey a valuable meaning, they would not have been intro- 
duced. The reader will find, therefore, that they receive 
great attention throughout this Epistle. The successful study 
of their meaning has contributed not a little to the luminous 
view which the author has given of the Apostle’s discussion. 
Dr. Sampson’s criticism is throughout characterized by this, 
that it is founded on an accurate and honest application 
of grammatical principles. Tis effort is to arrive at the 
author’s meaning by a faithful but enlightened observance 
of those principles ; and when it is thus reached, to accept it 
submissively, and to seek to understand it just as the lan- 
guage of the sacred author gives it. It is this spirit which 
has made Winer his favourite among all the modern critics 
of the language of the New Testament, together with his 
high estimate of the learning and accuracy of that scholar’s 
work on the New Testament Idioms. The rigid grammatical 
principles, the honest and Saxon good sense, and critical 
fidelity of this learned German, commended themselves ex- 
actly to his tastes and mental habitudes. The reader will 
consequently find that Winer is referred to more frequently 
than any other authority. The edition of his Idioms of the 
New Testament used in this work, is the English transla- 
tion of Agnew and Ebbeke, published by Robert Carter 
and Brothers, New York. But the references are so given, 
as to be available for any edition. 

Ihave judged it an improvement to introduce into the 
Commentary the Greek text of the Epistle, in the manner in 
which Calvin inserts his Latin translation. The edition fol- 
lowed is that of Vater, the one always used by Dr. Sampson, 
and made by him the basis of this Commentary. The addi- 


EDITOR’S PREFACE. ΧΙ 


tion thus made to the size, and consequently to the expense 
of the book, is trivial; and 1 am convinced that every reader 
will be pleased to gain, at so small a cost, the advantage of 
having the text under discussion in convenient proximity to 
the Commentary, and of dispensing with the labour of hand- 
ling several books constantly in connexion with the reading 
of one. It may be here stated, that I have not attempted to 
give a new translation of the text into English, as is common 
in modern critical commentaries. Dr. Sampson has given 
no continuous version in his notes; and although I might 
have attempted to construct one in strict conformity to his 
exposition, it would not have been so truly his, as to possess 
any value in the reader’s eyes, when he, as well as I, had 
that exposition in his hands. 

I have also usually inserted the passages cited for illus- 
tration, so fully as to enable the reader to understand their 
bearing and use, without the fatigue of hunting them up. 
Such fatigue is often evaded by many readers, to the injury 
of their apprehension of the subject. The bulk of the vol- 
ume is somewhat swelled by this means; but Iam persuaded 
that the pleasure with which it will be read is more than 
proportionably increased. 

I need scarcely remark, that as I have not taken the lib- 
erty to modify or to add to the views which Dr. Sampson 
has expressed in his notes, I am not willing, and am not 
justly liable, to be held responsible for all of his opinions, 
nor for his omissions. While I candidly prefer these notes 
to any other commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, for 
their accuracy, sound judgment, taste, orthodoxy, and pro- 


found insight into the mind of the sacred writer, my agency 


xiv EDITOR’S PREFACE. ἡ 


about them should not be understood as indicating whether 
I do or do not assert their completeness and the accuracy of 
their views in every particular. 

Had their lamented author published them himself, it is 
possible that, notwithstanding the maturity and completeness 
to which he had brought his work, he would have supplied 
much which is left wanting, and would have reconsidered 
some views. Doubtless he would have given to the work 
a perfection of detail, and, in many respects, a value, which 
it cannot receive from others. It is not asserted that the 
work is as good as if it had gone to the press from his hand. 
It is frankly confessed that, in the loss of his editorial super- 
vision, there has been a subtraction from its value which 
is irreparable. But it is made as perfect as my utmost 
fidelity and most diligent care could make it, under the 
circumstances. 

My labours in this undertaking have been attended with 
the consciousness that whatever of merit this work may be 
found to possess, will be attributed, as it should be, to its 
author ; while whatever blemishes may be found in the 
mode of its execution, will be imputed to me. If this be so, 
I shall not complain. 

No one could have a friend more worthy to receive such 
disinterested and self-sacrificing service from those who loved 
him, than the dear brother whose posthumous work I have 
given to the world. And no one can be more magnani- 
mous than he would have been, to render similar labours 
joyfully in behalf of his friend. My laborious agency upon 
this work cannot win for me from the public any other re- 


ward than that of seeing my friend known and appreciated 


\ 


EDITOR’S PREFACE. XV 


‘by the Church more as he deserved to be, and, above all, of 


making a contribution, which would otherwise have been 
lost, to the means of understanding and loving the word of 
God, and the theory of redemption. If these objects are 


secured, it will be enough. 


Union TueEotocicaL Seminary, PRINCE 
Epwarp, Va., January, 1856. 


; oti i av “ 


>. Ι Δ ᾿ 
nad pant de ti Ma ΚΩ͂Ν , ab hater 


Ts fins MAb ΔῸΣ in Sete ὑόν 
πον Ν εἰδὴ lita bo si iets wah 


| waists wi Lang eh REN ini Bn 


4 ΠῚ ΓΝ Ὧν ie ὁ enh bait ee δ. 
᾿ ᾿ ‘iyi Ἢ Mp ἐν ὃ * 17 Le ἧδε να αὐ | ᾿ ν ἃ 
\ Bharat a Se 


ee ΨΥ ἡμὴ : (ore 
. νι νῶν arnt ΑΚ δ » 
prea las i ah ines Υ- lilac ee 
ak shake denen a sai ged 
a stay i Py ee dpa nah 
: est a es stn νὰ va 
i ee Aka A » te 
apie bien he 4X siaceeed 5 eects 5 
| oer meas ac _ 


7; le 


OA ahh My _ 





LN Pe. OD ΟΙΟΥ HSS AY 


ON THE 


PROPER QUALIFICATIONS OF THE CRITICAL INTERPRETER OF THE 
SACRED SCRIPTURES. 


THE great enemy of truth, of Christ, and of souls, has long 
been at work. His hate and his skill have only increased 
with his age and experience. 

᾿ς When Christianity was first set up, Satan held the world 
fast bound in paganism. It had been so for many long ages 
of darkness,—ages of ignorance, and superstition, and sin. 
To this huge system, the great facts and the simple and sub- 
lime doctrines of Revelation, too deep for the discoveries of 
natural reason, had to be opposed. With the Bible in hand 
and a sound reason at command, aided by the mighty power 
of the Holy Ghost, it devolved upon the Christian Philoso- 
pher to sustain the conflict for the interests of souls, and of 
Christ’s kingdom. Satan was unequal to the contest ; pagan- 
ism fell, and Christianity triumphed. 

The great enemy next entered the Christian camp. Un- 
able to oppose paganism to Christianity, he determined to 
baptize it with Christian baptism. He endeavored to smother 
the Church with idolatry, and brought in formality like a 
flood. Under the guise of piety, he set up in the Church, in 


1 


2 INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. 
+ 


the name of Jesus Christ, a vicar for himself, and found a 
human and formal substitute for every divine doctrine and for 
every Christian virtue. He took away from the people the 
word of God, and gave, in its place, the decrees of councils 
and of popes ; he destroyed the spirit and simplicity of Chris- 
tian worship, and substituted the more imposing but lifeless 
ceremonies of man’s invention in their stead. He seemed to 
have gained the victory. But the reformers, like good sol- 
diers of Jesus Christ, with the word of God, which is the 
sword of the Spirit, burst his bands, gave him battle, and 
broke his power. True, spiritual Christianity, almost dead, 
revived and flourished. 

Satan saw himself foiled, and again resolved to marshal 
his forces from without. Free from the shackles of blind 
devotion and ignorant superstition, it was easy to run men 
into the opposite extreme of infidelity. ‘The wily skeptic 
and bold blasphemer thought to reason or shame religion from 
the earth. The God of retributive justice was mocked. His 
word a forgery ; His ministers deceivers; and His people 
hypocrites. Revelation was a dream, and reason was God. 
Christian logicians, mighty men of God, and. mighty in the 
Scriptures, joined issue, and the enemy was defeated. Infi- 
delity ran mad, and Christianity prevailed. 

But the arch enemy, though cast down, was not destroyed, 
His next stratagem was a master-stroke. In the dark ages, 
paganism had served his purpose well: in an age of light, he 
saw the need of something more subtile. Paganism had fallen 
when opposed to the Church, but had well nigh prevailed, 
when embraced in her bosom ; so infidelity, though defeated 
without, yet when intrenched within her pale, might prove her 
ruin. He baptized paganism then ; now he resolves to bap- 
tize infidelity. The great agents by whom he would vex and 
destroy the Church, are infidel theologians and commentators 


INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. 3 


on the Scriptures. In the former case he took away the 
Word of God: now he would mangle and pervert it. The 
worst enemies of the truth and of the church, are professed 
friends within her own pale ;—theological professors and 
preachers, at heart infidels, doing what they can to under- 
mine the foundations of faith,—to unsettle the canon of 
Scripture and the interpretation thereof. The critical inter- 
preter of the Scriptures, therefore, under the great Head of 
the Church, who has always given the victory, must sustain 
the brunt of the present conflict. 

I have deemed it not unsuitable to discuss briefly here the 
proper qualifications of the critical interpreters of the Sacred 
Scriptures. In pursuance of this subject,— 

I. The first qualification which I shall mention is, that 
he have a thorough conviction that the Scriptures are indeed 
the Word of God: in other words, that he be a firm believer 
in the plenary inspiration of the Sacred Scriptures. 

By this I do not mean that it is to be maintained that 
every word of the text is now just what it was, as the text 
came from the hands of inspired prophets and apostles; but 
that the text, as it came from them originally, contained the 
very matter, and in the very words which God designed to 
constitute the Revelation, and rule of our faith and duty. 
We may, indeed, admit different kinds or degrees of in- 
spiration ; but, impossible as it is to determine, in any par- 
ticular case, what degree of supernatural aid and control 
may have been needed to lead the writer to record just what 
he did, and in the very words that he did, and to guard him 
against all error, either of doctrine or of fact, we must hold 
firmly to the result that, in every case, such supernatural aid 
and control was vouchsafed, as was requisite to secure against 
error, and to make the Revelation, both as to matter and 
form, just what God designed it to be; and that, since its 


4 INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. 


completion, no such corruption has crept into the text, as to 
invalidate its claim to be an authentic and, of course, author- 
itative revelation of God’s will to man. 

We know, indeed, that since the sacred Scriptures were 
written, through the unavoidable casualties of transmission by 
frequent transcription, manifold trifling variations and dis- 
crepancies are to be found in the documents which furnish us 
the text. But, making full allowance for these, no man ac- 
quainted with the subject will, at this day, dare affirm, that 
the text has by this means so far lost its original purity as to 
invalidate, in the slightest degree, the authority which origi- 
nally pertained to its teachings. ΤῸ question the original in- 
tegrity of the text, would be to suppose that God would give 
to man a rule of faith and practice, originally imperfect and 
faulty ; that here there was a departure from what was true 
in regard to all else that came from his hands,—“ Behold it 
was very good!” It is, indeed, sometimes said, that since 
God has not seen fit, by a perpetual miracle, to preserve the 
original text free from all corruption, accidental or designed, 
we cannot assert, that in its original composition he preserved 
the writers of the sacred Scriptures absolutely free from all 
error. But, to say nothing of the claims of the sacred writers 
themselves, it violates our natural ideas of the perfections of 
God to say, that he would inspire men at all to write a reve- 
lation, and yet leave them liable to write down errors or 
untruths for our instruction. It is consistent with the per- 
fections of God to form the fair fabric of the world, and 
create perfect moral creatures to occupy and enjoy it ; and 
yet, to allow these rational and moral creatures to sin, and 
incapacitate themselves for such occupation and enjoyment. 
But it would be utterly inconsistent with his perfections, to 
create a world originally marred with deformities and dis- 
orders, and still more to people it with rational and moral 


INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. 5 


creatures, corrupt and perverted in their rational and moral 
natures. If God create a moral being at all, he must, by the 
very necessity or law of his own holy, wise, and beneficent 
character, create him a holy and happy being, free from all 
taint or corruption, perfect in his kind. And so in regard to 
a revelation. He may devolve on man the responsibility of 
its preservation, or he may withhold one altogether. But if, 
in divine compassion, he condescend to give one to man for 
his instruction and guidance, he must give him one com- 
porting, in all respects, with the perfections of its glorious 
Author, and adapted to meet the wants, and command the 
confidence, of him for whom it was intended. 

These conditions are by no means fulfilled, if we hold 
merely to the substance of the Scriptures as inspired of God, 
while we admit that the words, either through lack of original 
inspiration, or through careless and irreverent transmission, 
are without authority. The substance of the Scriptures is 
contained in their words ; except by the latter we had not 
known the former ; and we receive the substance because we 
believe the words which contain it came from God. Destroy 
reverence for the authority of the text, and you soon destroy 
all due regard for the authority of the matter. Admit that 
the text was originally mixed with error; that the writers 
were sometimes so far left to themselves that they recorded 
what was not true ; or that, sinc the Scriptures were written, 
corruption has come in to such an extent as to affect the doc- 
trines and duties inculcated, or to invalidate the proper 
integrity of the text ; and we not only admit a derogation 
from the Scriptures, which is incapable of proof, and opposed 
by many valid arguments, but we at once allow a liberty 
which man has never yet known how to use. Where inspi- 
ration stands, and where inspiration fails; in other words, 
where we have the teaching of God, and where the teaching 


6 INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. 


of man; or, stronger still, where we have truth, and where 
we have falsehood, we can have no certain means of ascertain- 
ing. Every man must be allowed to separate for himself ; 
and the prevailing rule will be, to receive that as from God 
which is agreeable to human philosophy and caprice, and 
to reject all which conflicts with them. Nothing short of in- 
spiration itself could make the proper separation. 

It may not be said that, inasmuch as the text, as we now 
have it, is, by admission, in manifold, though generally exceed- 
ingly trivial instances, corrupt, therefore the very liberty 
which we fear to allow has to be continually exercised. 
There is a wide difference between the stand-point of the 
mind which holds, in any particular case of various readings, 
the surrounding text to be all firm, and, from amongst the 
various readings, endeavors to select that which, like it, pro- 
ceeded from the pen of inspiration, and that of the mind 
which is altogether at sea as to the metes and bounds of sur- 
rounding inspiration, and which feels at liberty to question 
the inspiration of the whole. In the one case, we are en- 
deavoring to restore to inspiration what the want of it has 
lost or taken away ; in the other, we question whether there 
be any inspiration, and, if there be, where it is. In the one 
case, we hold to the body, and seek to restore a lost or 
wounded member, however small ; in the other, we not only 
question which is the proper member, but we doubt if there 
be any body at all. 

The belief of the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, 
in the sense which I have defined, is necessary, to inspire the 
interpreter with a proper regard for the word of God as such ; 
to restrain him from handling it deceitfully, or with presump- 
tion and lightness ; to stimulate to due diligence and care, 
and dependence on God in eliciting the true meaning of its 


INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. "4 


words, and to induce a ready submission to its authorita- 
tive teachings. 

On this important subject, the history of Biblical inter- 
pretation in modern Germany furnishes most instructive 
lessons. Here we have the disastrous effects of the rejection 
of the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures exhibited on a 
scale which is appalling to the devout mind. We know, 
indeed, that the great apostacy in Germany began in the 
heart. The long barren discussions which succeeded the re- 
formation terminated, in the eighteenth century, in the utter 
prostration of vital piety. But the first outward demonstra- 
tions were against the authority of the sacred Scriptures, 
against the canon and the text. The discussions of the 
previous century had disclosed the fact, that the Scripture 
text had been subjected to the same casualties of transmission 
as the text of other books. But when further investigation 
had demonstrated that the changes which had crept in from 
this source could never invalidate its claims as an authentic 
text, it only remained to question the authority of its 
teachings ; and this could be done only by denying its plenary 
inspiration. This done, and philosophy had full sweep, and 
boldly asserted her assumed prerogatives. Miracles and pro- 
phecies were pronounced to be impossible things; and of 
course full liberty was felt to explain away the account of 
them in the Seriptures. The former were put on the same 
level as Grecian and Roman myths ; the latter were mere 
shrewd conjectures of near events, or histories post eventum, or 
dim and uncertain visions of the remote future. The wildest 
and most forced interpretations were put upon words, in order 
to sustain foregone conclusions of philosophy and science, 
falsely so called ; and when the plain grammatical interpre- 
tation forced out the true meaning, that meaning ceased to 
be binding, because not inspired of God, and not equal to the 


8 INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. 


present advanced state of human thought and human in- 
quiry. 

It need scarcely be added, that the ground occupied by 
such interpreters is essentially infidel. From them we are 
not to expect fair dealing with the text, or reverential exposi- 
tions of its meaning. And yet it seems not to be understood 
by some, that there is no firm middle ground between the 
opinions of those who regard the very words of the Scriptures 
as originally sanctioned, where not dictated by the Spirit, and 
consequently free from all errors, and of those who regard the 
whole as of human origin, and consequently from the begin- 
ning more or less mixed with error. The Bible is of God, or 
of man ; all of God, or all of man ; consequently all authori- 
tative as from God, or none demonstrably so. A mixed 
revelation (so to call it) would, as we have already intimated, 
require another purely divine one to enable us to determine 
what in the former was from God, and what from man. 

II. The next essential qualification of the interpreter of 
the sacred Scriptures which I shall mention is, that he be truly 
enlightened and regenerated by the Spirit which gave them. 

The necessity for this qualification lies in the deep-rooted 

be pravity of the human heart, ‘and its consequent natural in- 
sensibility and aversion to the spiritual truths of the sacred 
Scriptures. All history testifies to this enmity of the heart to 
the truth of God. Unsanctified minds seldom treat of the 
word of God, except to pervert or to ridicule it. “ The 
natural man,” say the Scriptures themselves, “‘ receiveth not 
the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto 
him ; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually 
discerned.” 

It is not to be expected, or believed, that a man, who is 
prejudiced at heart against any system of truths, shall be able 
fully to understand them, or fairly to expound them. Still 


INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. 9 


less can this be expected in the present case, where the truths 
are of such a character as to aim directly at the correction of 
the whole man. Pride of intellect, as well as of heart, must 
be subdued ; wicked passions must be restrained and mor- 
tified ; and the whole current of feeling, and thought, and 
action, run in a direction which has no congeniality with the 
selfish and carnal desires of the natural heart. Where such is 
the conflict between the interpreter and the sacred writings 
which he undertakes to expound, there must often be gross 
misconceptions, as well as gross perversions, of their meaning. 
The temptations to this may even be all the stronger, accord- 
ing to the respect which the interpreter has for the binding 
authority of the Scriptures. The necessity of an adjustment 
of the Wenflict is felt to be the more urgent ; and it is far 
easier for corrupt and blinded man to relinquish and pervert 
the truth, than it is for him to give up his own views, and 
principles, and practices. In such a case, error has greatly 
the advantage over the truth. The whole strength of our 
natural opposition to the truth is enlisted on its side ; and 
precisely because the Scriptures are acknowledged to be an 
authoritative rule, the desire is felt so to expound the rule as 
to make it easy and acceptable to unhumbled reason and 
unsanctified affections. Where lower views are entertained 
of the binding authority of the Scriptures, the interpreter may 
feel no such strong temptation wilfully to pervert their 
meaning. He may feel free to exhibit the doctrines, and 
duties, and facts of the Scriptures, and yet be equally free to 
maintain his own views and practices. Still, in either case, 
the interpreter’s subjective incapacity for the truth, his 
natural want of spiritual apprehension of it as light and life to 
the soul, must often exclude correct and luminous views, and 
spread darkness over the sacred page. 

The exposition of the Scriptures, therefore, is safe and 


10 INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. 


edifying only in the hands of him who, to a profound rever- 
ence for their divine authority, unites a heart and understand- 
ing in unison, by virtue of the operations of the Spirit, with the 
spiritual truths which they inculcate. In him only is found 
the spiritual discernment and love for the truth which places 
the mind in the proper attitude for the right apprehension 
and exhibition of it. 

Here again Germany furnishes instructive lessons for our 
admonition. It was the decline of piety, as we have already 
stated, which prepared the way for those loose views of the 
authority of the sacred Scriptures which have, in that country, 
been so destructive of a correct and reverential treatment of 
them. The men there, and their followers in other countries, 
who deny the possibility of miracles and prophecies, and who 
treat the word of God scarcely as they would the word of 
man, ave not the men, whatever may be their private amia- 
bility and worth, who set the highest value on the power of 
inward godliness and outward piety, and who do the most to 
promote them ; and when this power of an inward life, gene- 
rated by the Spirit of God, has taken possession of the heart, 
it has been followed generally by a more or less total renun- 
ciation of former philosophical difficulties. We have, indeed, 
in entire accordance with what we have already said, some 
quite remarkable instances of expositorial tact in minds of 
skeptical views and of doubtful piety. But even the best of 
such commentators do much to unsettle the foundations, and 
do little for the advancement, of true religion. Happily the 
course of theological controversy and scriptural exposition in 
that distracted country, gives us much hope that the victory 
will ultimately decide for those who have hid the word of 
God most deeply in their hearts, and who bow with most rey- 
erence and obedience to its authoritative teachings. 

Ill. The third qualification, which I mention as essential 


INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. 11 


to the critical interpreter of the Scriptures, is ὦ thorough 
knowledge of the original languages in which they are written, 
as well as a good knowledge, at least, of their cognates, 

It is well known that the original languages of the Scriptures 
are the Hebrew, Chaldee, and Greek; and that these are 
properly now all dead languages. The immediate cognates 
of these, a knowledge of which may be regarded as indispen- 
sable to the accomplished interpreter of the Scriptures, are 
Arabic, Syriac, and Ethiopic for the first two, and the Latin 
for the last. 

That a thorough knowledge of the original languages of 
the sacred Scriptures is absolutely necessary to the interpreter, 
will hardly be denied at the present day, by any one who is 
competent to judge. All allow that our best translations are 
imperfect ; and were these as perfect as they could be made, 
it would, in a multitude of cases, be impossible for the student 
of these merely to investigate the possible interpretations of 
the original, or to ascertain the full meaning of the true one. 
The truth is, that whilst the great doctrines and duties 
taught in the Scriptures are taught in a variety of form and 
connection, which ought to Jeave no dispute as to what they 
are ; yet, in respect to the doctrines, at least, saving a few— 
happily the most fundamental—there is, amongst Christian 
interpreters and theologians, a wide diversity ; and in the 
minuter details of interpretation, particularly, there is a di- 
versity, and often a contrariety, which is to be ascribed, not 
merely do dogmatic prejudices and to deficient knowledge in 
general, but especially to a defective knowledge of the original 
languages of the Scriptures. Whoever considers the ease 
and certainty with which we understand those who speak and 
write our own vernacular tongue, must be sensible of what we 
lose in the interpretation of the Scriptures, by the want of a 
thorough acquaintance with the languages in which they are 


19 INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. 


written. We make full allowance for the influence of dog- 
matic prejudices, where these may operate, for the embarrass- 
ments of an imperfect knowledge of antiquity generally, and 
for the imperfection and ambiguity of language, even when 
best known and correctly written: and yet we hesitate not. 
to say, that the diversities that we meet with in the minutiz 
of interpretation are such and so numerous, as to prove incon- 
testably that the prolific source from which they spring is the 
want of a thorough acquaintance with the original languages 
themselves ; such an acquaintance as those who thought and 
spake in them possessed. It is the want of easy familiarity 
with the original languages of the Scriptures, indeed, which 
has always constituted the greatest difficulty in the way of 
interpreters, and has most powerfully tempted to the easier 
and more seductive methods of allegorizing, so common with 
the fathers, and catenating and compiling, so much practised 
by their successors down to the present day. 

In order to this thorough acquaintance with the original 
languages of the Scriptures, so indispensable, it is all-impor- 
tant to the interpreter, that he be well acquainted with their 
nearer cognates. In these he finds the usages which so often 
fail him, by reason of insufficient remains, in the case of the 
Hebrew especially ; and the most useful helps for the inter- 
pretation of both the Old Testament and the New. Itis only 
by the diligent study of all these, both the original and the 
cognate languages of the Scriptures, that the interpreter can 
so appropriate and appreciate the forms of thought, the idiom, 
force, and spirit of the sacred writers, as to feel independent 
und at home in his work. I may be allowed to introduce 
here, the testimony of a veteran in Oriental literature, taken 
from the preface of the latest edition of his famous Hebrew 
grammar. ‘There are two ways,” says he, “to pursue the 
Hebrew. The one is to consult the Hebrew grammars and 


INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. 13 


Lexicons that are at hand ; by way of supererogation to spell 
a little Arabic and Syriac ; to take in hand some other helps 
that lie in a couple of bye-ways; to compare a half ora 
whole dozen of commentaries ; and then believe that one 
understands Hebrew, and can, as a learned man, expose the 
true sense of the Old Testament. This attractive way have 
thousands marched, and never will it cease to be the most 
admired ; but upon what sandbanks and cliffs it conducts, we 
should at last universally perceive. 'The other is first to lay 
the Hebrew entirely aside, and, with true toil and devotion, 
appropriate a hundred talents, in regions which lie quite far 
from the Old Testament, and which, in Germany, yield no 
bread ; for example, become in all Shemitic literature first 
perfectly at home, and then perhaps return again to the old 
Hebrew, in order to recall it for ourselves, piece by piece, from 
death to life, and so apprehend what it really says to us and 
teaches us.” This extract, certainly savours of Germany ; 
more than is here meant is indispensable to the devont and 
successful interpreter : but what piety and a sacred regard for 
the authority of the text can do, and will do, without the 
knowledge of the original languages of the Scriptures, we 
may learn from the almost universal allegorizing of the fath- 
ers and dogmatism of the dark ages, and from the many com- 
mentators of later times, who have done little more than 
collect and digest the statements and criticisms of others who 
have preceded them, and sometimes have done this in a very 
superficial and unscholarlike way. 

The qualification of which I am speaking is so obvious and 
so generally admitted, that I deem it unnecessary to enlarge. 
I must add, however, before dismissing it, that the church 
has need at the present day of Scripture interpreters, who 
possess this knowledge of the original languages, and of the 
helps to the right understanding of them, in a very high 


14 INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. 


degree. Never was this department of sacred literature more 
sedulously and more successfully cultivated ; and never were 
the fruits of lingual investigations applied with more zeal to 
the unsettling of the canon and perverting the meaning of the 
Scriptures. Their authority is attacked with an array of 
erudition and learned authority, that must confound the 
simple; and to be maintained, they call for men of at least 
equal and less sophisticated lore. 

IV. But not only is a thorough knowledge of the original 
and cognate languages of the Scriptures necessary to the inter- 
preter ; he has need, in the fourth place, of a very extensive 
and often minute acquaintance with various collateral know- 
ledge. 

There is no department of real knowledge that does not 
help to the better understanding and illustration of the 
Scriptures. There are expressions in them which have for 
ages been misunderstood, or correctly apprehended only since 
the clear discoveries of modern science. It is, to give a simple 
example, familiar to every reader of the Scriptures that the 
rising and setting of the sun, so frequently mentioned in them 
are, as in our own language, only a conformity to the ordinary 
usages of language to express an ordinary phenomenon as it 
appears in nature, without teaching any thing as to the real 
manner of its occurrence, although they may at first have 
originated in conceptions of a mode conformed to the appear- 
ance. 

But far more important than all modern science, strictly 
so called, to the right interpretation of the Scriptures, is 
a good knowledge of history, and an intimate and correct 
knowledge of antiquity. The Scriptures contain a long suc- 
cession of revelations and records, made originally for the 
benefit of a particular chosen people, but intended ultimately 
for the benefit of all the nations of the earth. They contain 


INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. 15 


ζ΄ 


throughout innumerable allusions to the geographical, histor- 
ical, political, social, moral, philosophical, and religious rela- 
tions of the chosen people, and the country which they inhab- 
ited, as well as of all the surrounding nations and countries 
with which they were in various ways connected. Here a 
wide field is thrown open for the biblical student ; and many 
rich results have been afforded by the diligent researches of 
modern inquirers. The more our knowledge advances of 
Jewish, Roman, Grecian, Egyptian,—indeed, ancient and 
oriental antiquities generally, the more thoroughly are the 
Scriptures understood in all their varied and multiplied allu- 
sions ; and their coincidence with ancient facts and relations, 
thus ascertained from other sources, constitutes an increasingly 
powerful and conclusive argument for their genuineness and 
authenticity. Difficulties, indeed, which, in some cases, 
seemed to be glaring discrepancies, and constituted for the 
infidel strong objections to the credibility, and of course to 
the genuineness and inspiration of the Scriptures, or of par- 
ticular parts thereof, have been completely solved, and added 
to the general mass of archzeological coincidences which serve 
so triumphantly to maintain and verify the inspired record. 

We are far from believing that this source of knowledge 
for the confirmation and better understanding of the Scrip- 
tures is completely exhausted. We believe, on the contrary, 
that the most valuable results are to flow from the persevering 
and thorough investigation of the original languages of the 
Scriptures, and the antiquities with which they stand con- 
nected. The facilities and inducements to such investigations 
were never greater than at the present time, nor the promise 
greater to religion and science. 

The Bible challenges investigation. It professes to give 
knowledge which shall make men wise unto salvation, and 


10 INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. 


demands to be studied and understood. It courts the light, 
and never avoids it. It stimulates to mental activity, and 
never stifles lawful inquiry. It shines brightest in the midst 
of surrounding light, and has always gained by every advance 
in real knowledge. It claims science as its handmaid, and 
wages eternal war upon all darkness.in the soul. We doubt 
not that, in the end, all real knowledge and all true science 
will pay it due homage and render it good service. It is a 
striking and significant fact, that while the boasted theories 
and alleged discoveries of modern science are boldly set up as 
conflicting with the Scriptures, the facts of antiquity that are 
almost daily brought to light are clearly demonstrating their 
truth, and illustrating their meaning. It is precisely the 
newest of the sciences which, like untutored children, show 
the most undevout hostility to the Scriptures ; the more 
established our knowledge, the more it accords with and con- 
firms them. The whole past history of the progress of true 
science authorizes the unwavering belief, that the more thor- 
ough and accurate our knowledge is of all things, ancient and 
modern, the more clearly will the truth of the sacred Scrip- 
tures appear, and the more accurately and thoroughly will they 
be understood and appreciated. At a day like this, when 
infidels in disguise are doing all to subvert and pervert the 
Scriptures, the critical interpreter may not neglect any of 
their defences, but should give diligent heed to them all, 

V. The next requisite to the interpreter of the sacred 
Scriptures which I shall mention is, a thorough and compre- 
hensive acquaintance with the Scriptures themselves. 

Scripture truths are not given systematically. They were 
not written by one man in one age, but by many men during 
along succession of ages. The facts, doctrines, and duties 
which they contain are taught in almost every variety of form 
and connection. But the writers, however diverse or widely 


INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. 17 


separated in time and space, were animated ‘and directed by 
one and the same unerring Spirit. They were the inspired 
religious teachers and rulers of the ages in which they lived, 
who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, and taught 
the truth in the measure and forms in which it was commu- 
nicated to them. The revelation at any given period of its 
progress, though not yet finished, possessed a certain com- 
pleteness, At every period it might be said, “‘ The law of 
the Lord is perfect, converting (or restoring) the soul.” The 
seeds of the whole system, so to speak, were there ; the first 
and great germs of saving truth were clearly discernible ; and 
in every age the humble believer knew enough for the life of 
his soul. The word as it then existed was suited to his wants. 
The very first part, that which Moses wrote, contained the 
history of facts which were fundamental in their character, 
and above all the philosophy of the ancients ; and, besides the 
moral law, numerous significant types which shadowed forth 
good things to come, and many exceeding great and. precious 
promises and prophecies, which addressed themselves to the 
faith, and attracted the study and meditation, of all the devout 
worshippers of Jehovah. It was precisely because this perfec- 
tion characterized the Scriptures at every period, that, far up 
on the stream of revelation, we hear their praises chanted in 
the most enraptured strains: and Old Testament saints, in 
respect to zeal and love for the word of God, lose nothing by 
comparison with the New. 

It follows from these remarks that the Scriptures, as we 
have them, constitute a complete and finished whole; and 
that every part, as it derives light from all the remaining 
parts, in its turn sheds light upon them. There is throughout 
a harmony and unity of design which can only be discerned 
and felt by him who thoroughly studies the whole; which 
unity and harmony undiscerned and unfelt by the interpreter, 


18 INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. 


he can scarcely fail not only to misunderstand, but to do vio- 
lence to, holy writ. What sad havoc has been made, in 
modern Germany, of the Old Testament types and prophecies, 
by severing the two grand divisions of the Scriptures, and in- 
terpreting them separately, as though they were not indited 
and composed by one and the same Spirit, is known to all 
who have attended at all to the course of scripture interpre- 
tation. Like disastrous results attend the separation of one 
book from another, and interpreting each part as though it 
sustained no common relation to all the rest. This mischiev- 
ous error is most injurious in the hands of those who, like 
too many interpreters of the present day, entertain low views 
of the inspiration of the sacred writers. To them, indeed, it 
ought to be confined. Those who regard the Scriptures as 
proceeding from men who spake as they were moved by the 
Holy Ghost, must, if they will be consistent, interpret every 
part of the whole volume by the light of all the rest. So we 
interpret the product of any other, though it be but a man’s 
spirit: how much more, when we believe that we are inter- 
preting words given or sanctioned by the infallible Spirit of 
God, the spirit of light and the spirit of truth ? 

The truth is, that the Old and New Testaments are the 
counterparts and complements of each other. We may com- 
pare them to the morning dawn and to the splendor of mid- 
day. The morning dawns and the mid-day shines, only be- 
cause of the approach and presence of the great monarch of 
light. And as we would catch his earliest rays, if we would 
bear the heat and brightness of his meridian glory ; so if we 
would fully comprehend the sublime and saving light of the 
New Testament, we should come to it through the obscure 
dawn of the Old. Either shines at all only because of the 
approach or the presence of the great Sun of Righteousness. 
The light which they shed is one and the same, only differ- 


INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. 19 


ing in degree. ‘They come from the same source, and they 
direct to the same end. It is ever the same Spirit speaking 
in them ; and whether the subject-matter be history, or type, 
or precept, or promise, or prophecy, whatever it be, the great 
object of the Spirit speaking in the Old Testament is, to 
meet the spiritual necessities of that generation of the cove- 
nant people of God, and chiefly by pointing them to, and pre- 
paring them for, the coming and redemption of the great Son 
of God and man, so clearly set forth in the New Testament. 
The necessities of God’s people in every age are essentially the 
same ; the great remedial system the same ; the experience 
of his people and the principles of his providential dealings 
with them the same. Where such is the unity of design and 
harmony in the subject-matter of revelation, it must needs be 
that all the parts stand intimately and mutually related, and 
confirm and illustrate one another. He best understands the 
Old Testament, who has learned the New aright ; and he 
best interprets the New, who has most thoroughly studied the 
institutions and weighed the very expressions of the Old. So 
true is this, that we may say, had the New Testament never 
existed, the Old had remained an unintelligible enigma ; and 
had the Old Testament never existed, the world had scarcely 
furnished the language that could have accurately and cer- 
tainly conveyed the glorious revelations of the New. The 
interpreter therefore needs not only an acquaintance with the 
general scope of the Sacred Volume, but a minute acquaint- 
ance with the whole Scriptures ; so that in the consideration 
of any passage or phrase that needs elucidation, he may be 
able at once to collect the light that streams from various other 
parts of the harmonious whole. 

VI. The last qualification of the interpreter of the sa- 
cred Scriptures which I shall mention, is, that he possess cor- 


rect principles of interpretation, and have the skill and judg- 
ment to apply them. 


90 INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. 


The proper object of all language is to express the opera- 
tions of the mind. Whether used by God or man, it is in- 
tended to communicate to others his thoughts, and feelings, 
and will ; and of course is properly designed to be understood. 
For this end it is obviously necessary, that, as far as possible, 
it be used in the ordinary acceptation of its words and phrases. 
No system of interpretation therefore can, in general, be just, 
which does not aim to get at the meaning which the words 
fairly and legitimately convey, when construed according to 
the ordinary usages of language. 

These general remarks apply in full force to the Scriptures. 
They are professedly a revelation of the will of God to man. 
As such, they were intended not only for the learned ; but 
for the common people. They demand no recondite system 
of rules, known only to the initiated, in order to be under- 
stood ; their object is to make men, learned and unlearned, 
wise unto salvation, by communicating the saving truths of 
God, so that all who will may understand. For the accom- 
plishment of this object, they must conform to the ordi- 
nary and legitimate usages of language. A revelation in unin- 
telligible language is, in this regard, no revelation at all ; and 
language is never surer to be misunderstood, or not understood 
at all, than when it is employed contrary to its established 
meaning and laws. Such a revelation, to be understood, 
must carefully reveal the method of its right interpretation. 

The Scriptures contain for themselves no such peculiar or 
special method of interpretation. They demand to be 
searched ; but by the help of no special light, save that of 
the Great Spirit of truth. They do, indeed, teach us that 
there are types, and parables, and prophecies, and, as I be- 
lieve, cases of double sense ; but we contend, that here there 
is no violation of the nature or the legitimate use of lan- 
guage, so long as we follow the sure guidance of Revelation 


INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. val 


itself, and proceed not arbitrarily in the interpretation. We 
have already contended that the Scriptures are a complete 
whole, and that one part is to be interpreted by the help of 
the rest ; this common-sense rule we apply in the interpreta- 
tion of all other instruments. What we further contend for 
here is, that allowing whatever may be fairly due to the 
nature of inspiration, and to the nature of the subject of the 
revelation, we must adhere to the principle, that the lan- 
guage employed teaches us, respecting that subject, whether 
past, present, or future, whether common or miraculous, 
above us or below us, and whether in figurative, typical, 
parabolic, or allegorical form, what, when interpreted by the 
ordinary laws and usages of language, it naturally and 
plainly means. It is in this sense that I would understand 
the famous maxim of the judicious Hooker:—‘“T hold for a 
most infallible rule in expositions of the sacred Scriptures, 
that where a literal construction will stand, the furthest from 
the letter is commonly the worst.” 

What is commonly known, therefore, as the historico- 
grammatical system of interpretation is, we believe, the only 
just system, always allowing what the very nature of a 
revelation from God and the subject of which it speaks may 
fairly demand. In this last qualification, we only allow 
what, in strict accordance with the true nature of lan- 
guage, is allowed to all writings—that they be interpreted 
according to themselves and according to the nature of the 
subjects of which they treat. 

Every period of the church has furnished abundant illus- 
trations of the prime importance of the possession of correct 
principles of interpretation, by those who undertake to ex- 
pound the Scriptures. Before the reformation, first the al- 
legorical, and then the dogmatical, prevailed. Since that 
period, a purer and more fruitful method of investigation 


22 INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. 


has been vigorously prosecuted; but often upon principles 
contrary to all sound and rational criticism, however pre- 
tending to both characteristics, and, of course, derogatory to 
the true dignity of the Scriptures as a revelation from God, 
and subversive of their true meaning. It is a common fault 
of all these systems, that they exalt the human and depress 
the divine. The dogmas of the church, the prolific fancies 
of exuberant minds, the prejudgments of human reason, 
the dicta of human philosophy, the analogies of false re- 
ligions and heathen mythologies, and the pretensions of 
modern science, have all prevailed to pervert the Scriptures, 
and to add to and abstract from them. It is thus, that 
even in protestant churches, since the reformation, we have 
had interpreters, who could expound the sacred Scriptures, 
manifestly controlled by the church symbols which they had 
embraced ; who could sce in the historiés and prophecies of 
the Scriptures types and adumbrations of all the great po- 
litical and ecclesiastical events of subsequent times ; who could 
treat as trivial all that was not, in the judgment of reason, 
directly conducive to the moral amendment of mankind ; who 
could add to the sacred narratives, or take from them, so 
much as was necessary to make them credible to their phi- 
losophy or conformable with it ; who could explain the doc- 
trines of Christ and His Apostles as mere accommodations 
to Jewish prejudices and the opinions of the age in which 
they lived ; who could find in all that was miraculous and 
prophetical absolute impossibilities, except so far as sheer 
jugglery or shrewd conjecture might attain; who could 
resolve plain and sober history into sublime poetical and my- 
thical epics; in fine, who could every where subject the 
supra-natural to the natural or the rational, thus reducing 
the whole of Revelation and of religion into the powerless 
abstractions of deism and pantheism: and where this could 


INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. 23 


not be done, could groundlessly impugn the integrity of the 
text, or flatly deny the truth of the record. 

These astounding results we ascribe in part to the systems 
of interpretation adopted, because, though in general they have 
proceeded from the subjective views and feelings of their 
authors, they have been adopted by acknowledged teachers 
of theology and expounders of the Scriptures in different 
churches and universities of the world, but especially of 
Germany, and have been the guiding principles in the ap- 
plication of the critical apparatus employed to explain away 
what was offensive and to elicit what was desired. It is 
gratifying to know, that there is a gradual return from these 
monstrous excesses to more sober and correct views of the 
office of the interpreter of the sacred Scriptures. Whilst 
some still run mad in their license, others, who have done 
large havoc to the Scriptures, have had their eyes opened in 
a measure to the reckless and ruinous results of their prin- 
ciples ; and the necessity is beginning to be felt of coming 
back to a devout application of those common-sense princi- 
ples of interpretation, which men ordinarly employ to ascer- 
tain the meaning of written language. Where these have 
been combined with learning and tact at exposition, we have 
had valuable contributions to the right interpretation of the 
Scriptures, even from men whose philosophic views allowed 
them to reject or oppose the doctrines which they inculcate. 

The time is fully come when the church of Christ has 
need of men in this department, who thoroughly understand 
their business. The great enemy was never wider awake nor 
harder at work. Vast erudition is arrayed against her very 
foundations and surest bulwarks. The great champions of 
damning delusions at the present day are in the church, and 
hold high places and occupy strong holds. Error has on its 
side all the corruptions of man and all the powers of hell. 


94 INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. 


Already we hear, from different quarters, some stifled sounds 
of jubilation. But on the side of truth is He that is greater 
than all. The Spirit of the Lord has set up His standard 
against them ; and if we will not be recreant to His cause, 
we will prepare ourselves for the conflict. The heat of the 
battle has called forth even in Germany noble champions for 
the truth, who contend with mighty skill for the faith of the 
saints. We have already said that there we see some signs 
of giving way in the ranks of the enemy. America, the 
refuge of all nations and the protector of- all creeds, may yet 
be the scene of a heavier conflict. The truth will doubtless 
prevail, The time will come when philosophy and science 
shall act their parts as the handmaids of religion, and not her 
mistresses. But let it be remembered, that her triumphs will 
not be achieved by the power of ignorance and supineness. 


\ 


COMMENTARY 


ON THE 


EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


INTRODUCTION. 


Srx questions present themselves preliminary to 
the exposition of this Epistle. 

1. To whom was it addressed ? 

2. By whom was it written ? 

3. In what language ? 

4. When was it written ? 

5. To what danger were the Christians peculiarly 
exposed, who are here addressed; and why ? 

6. What then was the author’s design; and how 
does he aim to accomplish it? 

The introductory matter will then be concluded by 
giving, in the 7th place, a General Analysis of the 
Epistle. 


I. Various opinions have been entertained as to the 


90 INTRODUOTION. 


persons addressed in this Epistle. Its epistolary char- 
acter has even been doubted; but this point will be 
fully established by the passages which we adduce to 
show its particular destination. It does not need, there- 
fore, a separate investigation. 

The Epistle was manifestly addressed originally to 
Jewish Christians. So all ancient testimony, and the 
whole scope of the Epistle prove. For particular pas- 
sages, the reader may consult chap. 2: 1, which, with 
its context, shows that the persons addressed were 
Christians, and implies that they were also Jews. In 
3:1, they are addressed as “holy brethren, partakers 
of the heavenly calling ;” by which words their Chris- 
tian profession is plainly described, And the invita- 
tion to “consider the Apostle and High Priest of our 
profession, Christ Jesus, who was faithful to him that 
appointed him, as also Moses was faithful im all his 
house ;” implies in them a familiarity with Mosaic insti- 
tutions. In 3: 6, the writer says: “But Christ as a 
son over his own house; whose house are we,” &e. 
They were, therefore, members of the Christian family. 
In 8: 12, the writer calls them “ brethren.” In 5: 12, 
it is said: “When for the time ye ought to be 
teachers, ye have need that one teach you again 
which be the first principles of the oracles of God ;” 
where the time which had elapsed since their profession 
of Christianity, is plainly intended. The whole of the 
well known passage in 6: 1-10, evidently applies 
to Christians by profession. In 10:19, it is said: 
“Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into 


ἘΞ 


INTRODUCTION. 27 


the holiest by the blood of Jesus,” &c. Here believers 
in Christ only can be described. And in 10: 23, “ Let 
us hold fast the profession of our faith without waver- 
ing.” The evidence that Jewish Christians are address- 
ed rather than Gentile, is to be further sought in all 
those numerous places, where a familiar acquaintance 
with, and attachment to Mosaic institutions, are pre- 
sumed in them by the author. Instances need not be 
cited. | 

But to what Jewish Christians was the Epistle writ- 
ten? Some say, to Jewish Christians in general. But 
this is refuted by sundry passages, which cannot be 
understood of Jewish Christians in general. Chap. 5: 
12, “For, when for the time ye ought to be teachers, 
ye have need that one teach you again which be the first 
principles of the oracles of God.” 10: 32 to 34, “ But 
call to remembrance the former days, in which, after 
ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afjlic- 
tions ; partly whilst ye were made a gazing stock, both 
by reproaches and afflictions ; and partly whilst ye e- 
came companions of them that were so used. For ye 
had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully 
the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that 
ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance.” 
13: 18, 19, “ Pray for us: for we trust, &. ... But ] 
beseech you the rather to do this, that I may be restored 
to you the sooner.” 18: 23, “Know ye that our broth- 
er Timothy is set at liberty, with whom, if he come 
shortly, J will see you.” 

Hence most critics assign a locality to the persons 


ο8 INTRODUCTION. 


addressed; and Asia Minor, Galatia, Corinth, Thessa- 
lonica, Spain, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Palestine, 
. have been designated by different writers. 

Of these, the most ancient and the most generally 
received opinion ts that they lived in Palestine. Tnter- 
nal evidence favours this opinion. Only Jewish Chris- 
tians are addressed. No allusion is made to their being 
in contact with, or in danger from heathenism; but 
they are addressed as in great danger from Judaism, and 
as intimately acquainted with the Jewish ritual. These 
circumstances are more particularly applicable to Jew- 
ish Christians residing in Palestine. The reference too, 
in chap. 10: 25 and 37, to the destruction of the Jew- 
ish polity (for which the reader may consult the com- 
ment on those passages), is the most applicable to 
them: “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves 
together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one 
another: and so much the more, as ye see the day ap- 
proaching.” “For yet a little while, and he that shall 
come will come, and will not tarry.” From chap. 6: 10 
(“For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and 
labour of love, in that ye have ministered to the saints, 
and do minister”), it appears that they were able to 
do works of charity ; and from 12: 4 (“Ye have not 
yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin”), that they 
had not suffered fatal persecution. It has been hence 
inferred that not Jerusalem Christians, but those in 
Cesarea Palestina, are primarily addressed. But this 
is a very doubtful inference, as will appear from the 
commentary on the passage. 


INTRODUCTION. 29 


_ II. The authorship of the Epistle has been much 
disputed. Some refer it to Aarnabas, as Tertullian. 
Some attribute it, in part at least, to Luke, as Clement 
of Alexandria; who thinks Paw/ the author and Luke 
the translator. Some ascribe it to Clement of Lome 
(Origen refers the matter to Paul, but mentions that 
some ascribed the writing of it to Luke, and some to 
Clement of Rome). Some refer it to Sylvanus, as a 
few moderns; others to Apollos, among whom are 
Luther’ and others. Zhe most ancient and generally 
received opinion ascribed it to Paul, at least in its 
matter. 

It was certainly received as Paul's, for substance, 
by the celebrated Alexandrian school. First, Pante- 
nus seems to be clearly indicated as stating so much, 
by Clement of Alexandria, as quoted by Eusebius 
(Eccles. Hist. B. VI. c. 14): “A little after this he 
(Clement) observes: ‘But now, as the blessed Presby- 
ter used to say: since the Lord, who was the Apostle 
of the Almighty, was sent to the Hebrews, Paw, by 
reason of his inferiority, as if sent to the Gentiles, 
did not subscribe himself an apostle of the Hebrews ; 
both out of reverence for the Lord, and because he 
wrote of his abundance to the Hebrews, as a herald 
and Apostle of the Gentiles.” After him, Clement of 
Alexandria thought that Paul wrote it in Hebrew to 
the Hebrews, and that Luke translated it into Greek. 
(See Euseb. Eccles. Hist. B. VI. c.14.) After him 
Origen, the next master of this school, says, Ez rig οὖν 


2 ΄ ” r \ > f c if ” 
ἐχκλησία ἔχει ταύτην τὴν ἐπεστόλὴν ὡς Παύλου, αὐτὴ 


90 INTRODUCTION. 


εὐδοκεμεέτω καὶ ἐπὶ τούτῳ. Οὐ γὰρ εἴχῃ οἱ ἀρχαῖοι 
ἀνδρὲς ὡς Παύλου avrny παραδεδώκασι. This testi- 
mony runs back very near to apostolic times. He also 
habitually quotes it as Paul’s, and includes it in his 
catalogue of Paul’s fourteen Epistles. (See Euseb. Ee- 
cles. Hist. B. VI. c. 25.) Similar testimony is borne 
by their successors. 

The Eastern Church universally received the Epis- 
tle as Paul’s. No reputable author has been cited to 
the contrary. Justin Martyr and Ephrem Sy His re- 
ceived it as Paul’s. Eusebius ascribes fourteen epistles 
to Paul (Eccles. Hist. B. III. ¢. 8, Tod δὲ Παύλου 
πρόδηλοε καὶ σαφεῖς αὐ δεκατέσσαρες ἐπιστόλαε, #.T.A.) 
and places this Epistle to the Hebrews among the 
ὁμολογοῦμενοε, ἴῃ. common with the Epistles of Paul 
(see Eccles. Hist. B. III. ο. 25; compare B. VI. ο. 13), 
although he says that some, after the example of the 
Romans, rejected Hebrews, ἀντὴν ἀντελέγεσθϑαε φήσαν- 
τες. He also habitually quotes it as Paul’s, in his Com- 
mentaries and other writings. 

In the Latin Church, it was generally received till 
the close of the second century, as appears from the 
extensive quotations of Clement of Rome, and from its 
having a place in the old Latin versions. Clement, 
however, after his usual manner, never mentions the 
author when he quotes it. Its canonical authority was 
doubted from the time of Tertullian and Caius, A. 1), 
200, to that of Jerome and Augustine. But all the 
Latins did not concur in these doubts, as appears from 
the statements of Jerome. After his time it was again 


INTRODUCTION. 31 


universally received. Its rejection during this period 
is ascribed to the use which the Montanists and Nova- 
tians made of chap. 6: 4 to 8, and chap. 10: 26 to 31, 
to justify their severe and unpopular rules as to the 
perpetual exclusion of certain classes of backsliders 
from the church. Thus the Revelation was rejected 
by some through opposition to the Chiliasts, who per- 
verted its concluding chapters to their support. 

It deserves also to be noted, that in some of the 
catalogues and most ancient MSS. (as the Codex Alex- 
andrin. Vatican, Ephremi. Coislinian, &c.), this Epis- 
tle occurs immediately after 2d Thessalonians, in the 
very midst of the Pauline Epistles. Such is the state 
of the external evidence. 

Different critics estimate very differently the inter- 
nal evidences of a Pauline original. Origen says: Ὃ 
Ζαρακτὴρ τῆς λέξεως τῆς πρὸς Ἑ ϑραίους ἐπεγεγραμμέ- 
νης ἐπεστολὴς οὐκ ἔχεε τὸ ἐν λόγῳ ἰδεωτεχὸν τοῦ axo- 
στόλου; κιτιῦ. ᾿Αλλὰ ἐστὴν ἡ ἐπεστολὴ σύνϑετεε τῆς 
λέξεως “Ελληνεκώτερα, παρ᾽ ὃ ἐπεστώμενος κρενεῖν φρα- 
σέων διαφορὰς OmohoyncELav...... εἰποεμ ὧν ὅτε τὰ 
μὲν νοήματα τοῦ ἀποστόλου ἐστίν ; 4 δὲ Pocus καὶ 
ἡ σύνϑεσεις ἀπομνημονεύσαντος τενὸς τὰ ἀποστόλεχα, 
καὶ ὡσπερεὶ σχολεογραφήσαντος τὰ εἰρημένα ὑπὸ τοῦ 
διδασκάλου. “The character of the diction of the 
Epistle written to the Hebrews, does not possess the 
verbal peculiarity of the Apostle,” &e. “But the 
Epistle is too Greek in the composition of its diction. 
Every one who knows how to distinguish styles, would 
acknowledge the differences .... I would say that the 


32 INTRODUOTION. 


thoughts are the Apostle’s; but the style and composi- 
tion are the work of some one who has narrated from 
recollection apostolic (doctrines); and, as it were, has 
written scholia upon what was told him by his teach- 
er.” (See Euseb. Eccles. Hist. B. VI. c. 25.) Imita- 
ting him, the most part admit that the style is more 
easy, flowing, and rhetorical, and even classical, than 
that of Paul generally; though some profess to find a. 
resemblance to it in his speeches before Felix, Festus, 
and Agrippa. (These, however, are reported by Luke.) 
It is also said that Paul’s mode of thinking and reason- 
ing are absent from the Epistle. But good critics 
have ventured to question the accuracy and taste of 
Origen in the Greek style and idiom. Bloomfield says: 
“The feeling of my own mind as to the composition 
now in question, after repeated and most attentive ex- 
aminations of its contents, is, that none but St. Paul 
could have written it, and consequently, that none but 
St. Paul did write it. In it, in short, we have all the 
peculiar and prominent features of St. Paul’s style and 
manner,” ἄς. The labours of Stuart in answer to Ber- 
tholdt, Schultz, Seyffarth, De Wette, Boehm, and Bliik, 
go far to show that, if we settle this question by an 
appeal to the axak λεγομέγνα, the ἅπαξ εἰρημένα, and 
the ἅπαξ λογεζομένα which may be found in it, to the 
hebraizing or classical expressions which it contains, or 
to such like arguments, we shall do it upon grounds 
which some of the objectors themselves have relin- 
quished, and which will either determine that this is a 
production of Paul, or that there are none such in the 





INTRODUCTION. aa 


sacred Canon. It may be remarked, too, that such is 
the Pauline cast, that if we may infer any thing from 
the signal failures of many early attempts at imitation 
of this and other apostles, we may believe with Origen, 
“that not without reason did the ancients hand it 
down as Paul’s.” One thing is certain; that so many 
are the circumstances which serve to modify style and 
thought, that nothing in the present case can be in- 
ferred from this source, against the positive external 
testimony which has been adduced. Let it be remem- 
bered in this connexion, that the Apostle was inspired, 
that the subject was unique, that this was among the 
last of his Epistles, that he was writing to his own 
countrymen, that he was subject to like passions with 
ourselves. All these circumstances might well modify 
here his diction and modes of thought. 


III. All to the original language of the Epistle, two 
opinions have been entertained: first, that it was writ- 
ten or dictated in Hebrew and translated into the 
Greek; and second, that it was originally written in 
the Greek as we have it. The ancients inclined to the 
former opinion ; the later commentators adopt the lat- 
ter. Though addressed to Hebrews, it was best adapt- 
ed to common use in Greek; as the Apostle manifestly 
judged in the case of the Epistle to the Romans, which 
was addressed to Latins. It has the air of an original, 
and nothing of the stiffness of a translation. It quotes 
from the Septuagint: a thing very unlikely, if it had 
been written in Hebrew; and it translates Hebrew 

3 


84 INTRODUCTION. 


words; (though here we should judge cautiously.) 
There is no evidence that a Hebrew original was ever 
in existence; but one has only been inferred to account 
for supposed departures from Paul’s style in other 
epistles. And in conclusion, the Greek Epistle was in 
early and universal circulation. 


IV. The Epistle was written before the destruction 
of Jerusalem; for the Apostle did not live so long. 
And it appears from chap. 9: 9, and 13: 10, not to say 
from the whole scope of the Epistle, that the temple 
was still standing, and its worship maintained. (jze¢ 
παραβολὴ εἰς τὸν καιρὸν TOY ἐνεστηκότω, HAP ὃν δῶρά 
τε καὶ ϑυσέίαε προσφέρονταε, κιτιῆλ., which should be 
translated: “ Which zs a figure for the approaching 
time, for which both gifts and sacrifices ae offered.” And 
Ἔχομεν ϑυσεαεστήρεον, ἐξ οὗ φαγεῖν οὐκ ἔχουσεν ἐξου- 
σέαν οἱ τῇ σκηνῇ λατρεύοντες.) But it could not have 
been written very many years before that destruction, 
since we learn from a passage already quoted (chap. 5: 
12), that they had long been Christians. The words 
of chap. 18: 7, “Remember them which have the rule 
over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God; 
whose faith follow, considering the end (ἔκϑασεν) of 
their conversation,” seem to show that their first teachers 
were already dead. A comparison of chap. 10: 25 with 
10: 87, will also discover an allusion to the near approach 
of the catastrophe: “ Not forsaking the assembling of 
ourselves together, as the manner of some is, but ex- 
horting one another, and so much the more as ye see the 


INTRODUCTION. 95 


day approaching.” ‘“¥or yet a little while, and he 
that shall come will come, and will not tarry.” 

After all that has been said, the canonical authority 
of the Epistle cannot be doubted; and there can be 
little doubt that Paul was the author. It is found in 
the old Syriac or Peschito version, in the old Latin ver- 
sions, and in twelve out of the fourteen ancient cata- 
logues; and is quoted, as we have seen, by the Fathers 
generally. 


V. The Jewish Christians addressed, were peculiarly 
exposed to apostacy from Christianity to Judaism, for 
several reasons. 1. From old prejudices and early 
education ; Judaism had been the religion of their fath- 
ers from immemorial generations. 2. From the splen- 
dour of the Temple and temple-service, which appealed 
continually to their senses, and which would be asserted 
by their enemies to stand in splendid contrast with the 
bald simplicity of the Christian worship. 3. From the , 
influence of social relationships; their relatives, neigh- 
bours, friends, countrymen, were Jews. 4. From the 
odium attached to the cross, than which there was, to 
a Jew, no greater stumbling block. 5. From persecu- 
tions, which, though not yet unto death, were severe. 


VI. The author aimed, therefore, first and mainly, to 
confirm them in the Christian faith against apostacy to 
Judaism. To this design the first twelve chapters are 
devoted. In chapter thirteen he exhorts them to va- 
rious Christian duties. He seems, however, never to 


96 INTRODUOTION. 


lose sight of his great design, while, of course, other col- 
lateral ends are subserved. 


VII. To comprehend the analysis of the Apostle’s 
argument, it should be noted, that the claims of the 
Jewish system were rested on these grounds: 1. Its 
introduction by the ministry of Angels. 2. Its having 
Moses, the greatest of Prophets, for its divinely appoint- 
ed Head. 3. Its divinely instituted Ritual and Priest- 
hood. The author therefore argues : 

I. Christ’s superiority to Angels, chaps. 1 and 2, 
proving Him to be divine in chap. 1, and explaining the 
reasons of his becoming man in chap. 2, ν. 5 to end. 

If. His superiority to Moses, chap. 3, v. 1-6. 

II. The superiority of his Priesthood to the Leviti- 
eal, in all respects, chap. 5, v. 1-10, and 7-10: 18. 

Each of these arguments is followed or interrupted 
by exhortations, the scope of which is generally against 
apostacy ; as in chap. 2: 1-4; 3:7 through 4: 5: 11-6. 
10: 19 through 12. 


The biblical student is referred for fuller details on 
the Introduction, to Horne’s Introduction, Vol. 11, pp. 
849-857. Stuart’s Commentary on Hebrews, Vol. I. 
Bloomfield on the Epistle, in his New Test. Lardner, 
Hug, Kuinoel, Micheelis, &c., and to Whitby’s preface 
to the Epistle in his Commentary. 

For Commentaries, the following may be consulted. 
Stuart, Bloomfield (in his Recensio Synoptica, or Crit- 


INTRODUCTION. 37 


ical Digest, and New Test.), Jas. Pierce, Hammond, 
Owen, Whitby, McKnight, Clark, Barnes. 

Calvin, Kuinoel, Rosenmiiller, Matheei, Poli Synop- 
sis, Wetstein, I. A. Ernesti (Lectiones in Ep. ad He- 
breos). 

From these sources the materials of this work have 


been chiefly drawn. 


CAAPTER I, 
ANALYSIS. 


Tue author commences with a comparison of the 
revelation made to the Fathers, and that made to them- 
selves, inv. 1. He does this with an evident view to 
the application of his argument in chap. 2: 1-4. He 
then appropriately introduces his subject by declaring 
the exalted character of Christ, vv. 2, 3, concluding 
with the assertion of his superiority to angels, v. 4. 
This is the first proposition to be proved, as at once 
laying a solid foundation for his own argument, and 
undermining a pillar in the Jewish faith. This superi- 
ority he argues, 7 

1. From the ttle bestowed on him. He is called 
Son in a sense in which that term is never bestowed 
on angels, v. 5. 

2. The angels are commanded to worship him, v. 6. 

8. The angels are represented as servants, like the 
winds and lightning, v. 7, but the Son is addressed as 
God, seated on an everlasting throne, swaying a sceptre 
of righteousness, the Founder of the earth, and Maker 
of the heavens, who, after creation itself had waxed old 
and changed, should remain forever and unchangeably 
the same, vv. 8-12. The whole argument is, of course, 
from the Jewish Scriptures. 


ANWALYWSIS. 39 


A supplement to this last argument, establishing 
the main proposition, adduces a passage which repre- 
sents Christ as exalted till all enemies are subdued; 
whereas the angels are sent forth to minister to his 
people. vv. 13, 14. 


Title of the Epistle: ‘H πρὸς ‘E@oaious’Excoroay. 
These words are possibly not Paul’s. They are not in 
the Apostle’s manner, nor like the introductions of his 
epistles generally, as will be seen by a reference to 
their commencements. But it may be urged, on the 
other hand, that an epistle would hardly be sent with- 
out any direction or address; and as the Apostle has 
omitted the usual introductory address, for some un- 
known reason, he may have prefixed this direction. 
Eusebius (in his Eccles. Hist. Pie 14), quotes 
Clement of Alexandria as saying: “It is probable the 
title, ‘Paul the Apostle, was not prefixed to it. For 
as he wrote to the Hebrews, who had imbibed preju- 
dices against him and suspected him, he wisely guards 
against diverting them from the perusal, by giving his 
name.” He also represents Clement as saying after 
‘Panteenus, that the omission of an introduction as 
‘ Apostle of the Hebrews, was out of reverence to our 
Lord, and because, being the Apostle of the Gentiles, 
he wrote out of his abundance to the Hebrews. It 15 
easier for us to account for Paul’s prefixing such a title, 
than for his dispensing with the usual introduction. 


40 ANALYSIS. 


The title is certainly very ancient; it is found in all the 
MSS. which contain the Epistle (with some variations, 
which may be seen in Scholz’ New Test.) ; it is found in 
the Syriac, and the Latin versions before Jerome; and 
the Fathers of the second and third centuries constant- 
ly refer to the Epistle as that to the Hebrews. Exam- 
ples may be seen in Eusebius’ Eccles. Hist. B. ΠῚ. ¢. 38. 
VI. c. 14. 25. 

But who are particularly defined by the term 
Ἑβραϊοεῖ We find it in the New Test. only in Acts 
6:1. 2 Cor. 11: 22. Philip. 3:5. In the first of 
these we read: ἐγένετο γογγυσμὸς τῶν Ἑλληνεστῶν 
πρὸς τοὺς Leuiov;. Here Ἑλληνεστῶν and Ἑ βραίους 
are manifestly opposed; and whatever difference of 
opinion may exist as to the former, the critics almost 
all agree that the latter, in this passage at least, means 


‘Hebrews residing in Palestine proper, and speaking 


the vernacular langtage of that country. Thus say the 
Lexicons, as Bretschneider, Wahl, Robinson; and the 
commentators on that passage of Acts. In the second 
place cited we read: “E@ocioi εἰσε; xeyo* Ἰσραηλῖ- 
ταί εἰσε; κάγω" Grégua’AGouau εἰσε; xayo* κτλ. 
And in the third: περετομῇ ὀκταήμερος. ἐκ γένους 
Ἰσραήλ, φυλὴς Βενεωμέν, Ἕβραῖος ἐξ Ἑβραίων, κιτ.λ. 
In each place it is plain that the Apostle means to 
affirm himself a Hebrew, or an Israelite in the strong- 
est sense of that term. Yet we see, from his case, that 
an actual birth in Palestine was not required for this 
distinction. Further, the words Ἑ ϑραϊκοῖς, in Luke 23: 
38, Ἑβραΐδε in Acts 21: 40, 22: 2, and 26: 14, and 


ANALYSIS. 41 


Efoaiort,in John 5:2, 19:13, 17: 20, and Rev. 9: 
11, 16: 16, all denote the Hebrew-Aramzan or Syro- 
Chaldaic, which was the proper tongue of the Jews in 
Palestine at that time. In Josephus, Bell. Judaic. B. 
VI. ὁ. 2. §1, Ἑβραΐζων means ‘speaking in Hebrew,’ 
i.e. in Syro-Chaldaic. Many of the Fathers, under- 
standing this Epistle, and also Matthew’s Gospel, to 
have been written to Jews in Palestine, designate in 
the same way both them, and the language in which 
they suppose that the Apostle wrote. The persons in- 
tended by this title seem plainly, therefore, to be He- 
brews then residing in Palestine, or, if foreigners by 
birth, educated in Palestine in the religion and customs 
of their fathers, and speaking their vernacular tongue. 
And if so, the title, if Paul’s, certainly determines the 
persons addressed ; or if early prefixed by other hands, 
it shows the opinion of the early church on this point. 
See Stuart’s Com. on Hebr. 2nd ed. pp. 35-38. 


42 HEBREWS, OHAP. I.’ Vv. 1. 


COMMENTARY. 


1 Πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως πάλαε ὃ Θεὸς λαλήσας 
τοῖς πατράσεν ἐν τοῖς προφήταις, ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτου τῶν 

2 ἡμερῶν τούτων ἐλάλησεν ἡ μῖν ἐν ὑεῷ, ὃν ἔϑηκε κλην 
ρονόμον πάντων, δὲ οὗ καὶ τοὺς αἰῶνας ἐποίησεν, 

ὃ ὃς ὧν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς 
ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, φέρων TE τὰ πώντα τῷ ῥήματε 
τῆς δυνάμεως αὑτοῦ, δὲ ἑαυτοῦ καϑαρεσμὸν ποιῆ- 
σάμενος τῶν ἁμαρτεῶν ἡμῶν, ἐκάϑεσεν ev δεξεᾷ 

4 τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς" τοσούτῳ κρείττων 
γενόμενος τῶν ἀγγέλων, ὅσῳ διαφορώτερον παρ᾽ 
αὐτοὺς κεκληρονόμηκεν ὄνομα. 


V.1. Ππολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως, means literally: 
“In many parts, and in many ways:” referring to the 
various revelations at different times, and the various 
modes in which they were given. So, in substance, are 
the words rendered by Calvin, Stuart, and Whitby. 
De Wette renders them, “ Vor zeiten vielfittig und 
auf vielerlei Weise.” Others regard them as mere 
euphonic synonymes, to denote the variety of doctrines 
and matters revealed through the prophets. So Gro- 
tius, Kuinoél, Dindorf, Bloomfield, understand them. 
But where then is the antithesis between these revela- 
tions, and those of “these last times?” If, with the 
New Test. Lexicons, we translate, “in diverse manners” 
(in multis modis) merely, whence do we rightfully 
derive such a sense for πολυμερῶς ? μέρος has properly 


PERE π 8, OR AP a τον τος. ὃ. 43 


no such meaning. The ancient interpreters were in 
like manner divided. Both words occur in the New 
Test. only here. It seems to us best, therefore, to ad- 
here to the meaning first announced. 

προφήταις literally means in Greek, “a foretel- 
ler.” In the Septuagint and New Test. it is used not 
in its etymological sense, but in that of the Hebrew 
8°22; one who speaks under divine authority and in- 
spiration, it might be to exhort, instruct, or rebuke, as 
well as foretell. Here the reader may compare Gen. 
20:7, where God informs Abimelech, king of Gerar, 
that Abraham is a prophet, i.e. an inspired man; 
Exod. 7: 1, where Moses, when sent on his mission to 
Egypt, is told that he “shall be as a God to Pharaoh, 
and Aaron his brother shall be his prophet,” i. e. his 
messenger; and Psalm 105: 15, in which the Israelites 
are called God’s prophets, in the sense of his anointed, 
holy, and chosen people. See also Alexander on Isaiah, 
Introduce. pp. 1x—xu. 

V. 2. ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου (Textus Receptus gives various 
reading, ἐσχάτων) τῶν ἡμερῶν. Hither reading gives 
the same sense. Both occur in the Septuagint for 
pad moins. Literally, it denoted the future, and for 
the most part, the remote future; as in Gen. 49: 1 
(where Jacob foretells his sons what shall befall their 
descendants “in the last days”), Numbers 24: 14, and 
Dan. 10: 14. But the phrase came technically to des- 
ignate messianic times as opposed to ancient times 
(πάλαι). In this sense Isaiah (2:2) says: “It shall 
come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the 


4-4 HEBREWS, CHAP. I. Vv. 2. 


Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the 
mountains,” &c. Hosea (3: 5), distinctly describing a 
time after the end of the ceremonial dispensation, says: 
“The children of Israel . . . shall fear the Lord and his 
goodness in the latter days.” Micah (4: 1) repeats the 
words of Isaiah, and in the same sense. In the New 
Test. the phrase is frequent under different forms of 
equivalent meaning, in all.of them designating messi- 
anic times, but referring more particularly to different 
periods of it. Thus, in Acts 2: 17, Hebr. 1: 1, and 
1 Peter 1: 20, it refers to apostolic times; and in 2 
Tim. 3:1, James 5: 3, 2 Peter ὃ: 3, to later times 
near Christ’s second coming. See Robinson’s Lexicon 
of New Test. 

ἕν vio. The article is omitted before this word, as 
also in 5:8 and 7:28 below. This is not unusual 
with proper names. It is worthy of remark that the 
name Xgcoros is almost uniformly preceded by the 
article in the Gospels, and is most usually without it in 
Paul’s and Peter’s Epistles. So Kvecog often wants the 
article, especially after prepositions. (See Winer’s 
Idioms New Test. 817. 8, p. 98. 811. 4.) 

The manifest antithesis between the several mem- 
bers of this verse should be noticed. But we are not 
to strain it so far as to infer that Christ was not the 
Divine Person manifested “to the fathers.” For we 
see in John 12: 41, that Isaiah “saw his glory, and 
spake of him.” Compare Isaiah 6: 1, 10; and 1 Cor. 
10: 4, 9, assures us that the old Israelites “drank of 
that spiritual Rock which followed them, and that Rock 


HEBREWS, CHAP. I. V. 2. 45 


was Christ ;” and forewarns us, “ Neither let us tempt 
Christ, as some of them also tempted.” 

zAnoovouoy. Christ is thus called because he is a 
Son, exalted by his Yather to the mediatorial throne, 
with all the power and judgment in his hands, and the 
promise of universal dominion as his inheritance. The 
meaning is well illustrated by the 2nd Psalm, through- 
out, but especially by vv. 6-9. It is worthy of note 
that the Latins used herus in the sense of dominus. 
An illustration of the author's idea may also be found 
in Gal. 4:1, Ἐφ᾽ ὅσον χρόνον ὁ κληρονόμος νήπεός 
ἔστεν, OVOEY δεαχφέρεε δούλου, #UQLOS πάντων wy. The 
word πάντων, annexed in the text, certainly gives to 
κληρονόμος the meaning of universal dominion. In 
the same sense, doubtless, Acts 2: 36 says: “God hath 
made that same Jesus ... both Lord and Christ.” 
Acts 10: 36 asserts that “He is Lord of all” (zvgcog 
πάντων). And Eph. 1: 22 says that God “gave 
(ἔδωκε) him to be Head over all things to the Church.” 

δὲ ov. Grotius renders these words (which in our 
version are translated, “dy whom also he made the 
worlds”) “on account of whom.” This is contrary to 
the general usage of the preposition διὰ with the geni- 
tive (see Winer’s Idioms New Test. 851, i; p. 304. 
Compare $53, 6; p. 308); and it is peculiarly contrary 
to its usage in this Epistle. Let the reader turn, for 
instance, to the examples nearest at hand; vv. 3, 9, 14 
of the first, and 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 14, &c., of the second 
chapters, and he will see that dv@ is uniformly employ- 
ed with the accusative to mean “on account of,” and 


40 HEBREWS, OHAP. I. Vv. 38. 


that when placed before the genitive, it signifies instru- 
mentality or agency. The sense given by Grotius is 
equally opposed to the parallel sentiments of 1 Cor. 8: 
6, “One Lord Jesus Christ, δὲ ov τὰ πάντα ;" of Col. 
1:16, ἐν αὐτῷ ἐχτίσϑη τὰ πάντα, #.0...... τὰ πάντα 
δὲ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔχκτεσταε; and of John 1: 8, 
πάντα δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο. The meaning therefore is 
plain ; that the Son was the agent in this work. 

rove αἰῶνας. This word here signifies “the world,” 
“the universe.” This is the sense in which it is used in 
chap. 11:3 infra, andin 1 Tim. 1:17. Its usage may 
be illustrated by that of n>%> in Chaldee and in the 
later Hebrew. This word is often used in the singular, 
respecting both the present world (FIM Ὡρὴν, ὁ αἰῶν 
οὗτος), and the future (835 Dn, ὁ αἰῶν μέλλων vel 
ἐρχόμενος). Instances of such use may be seen in Matt. 
12: 32; Mark 10: 30; Luke 18: 30; Wisdom 4: 2; 
Matt. 13: 22, 40,49; 28:20; Eph. 1: 21. Its uses 
may also be compared in 1 Cor. 10:11; Eph. 2: 7; 
Hebr. 9: 26, and perhaps 6: 5. These passages plainly 
reveal two senses as attaching to the words aay, aid- 
vec in New Test. usage. In the one class of citations, 
it is “the universe,” in the other, the later dispensation 
as contrasted with a previous. The former sense is 
most appropriate to this text. It is worthy of notice 
that Hebr. 2: 5, when speaking of our world as not 
put in subjection to the angels, employs the word oé- 
κουμένην, the word usually employed to describe the 
habitable globe. 


” > , ~ fu > ~ 
V. 3. ὃς ὧν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ. “The 


᾿ 


HEBREWS, CHAP. I. Vv. 8. 41 


shining forth of his glory.” De Wette renders these 
words, Ein abglanz seiner Herrlichkeit: “A reflection 
of his glory.” The glory of God here can only mean 
the divine perfections, and not his declarative glory 
merely ; as is sufficiently evident from the connected 
and parallel clause, which is translated by the English 
version, “the express image of his person.” For if it 
is only meant by the former clause, that Christ or his 
work manifest the declarative glory of God, it may be 
answered, so does the humblest saint; yea, sinners 
and devils. There would be a glaring incoherency be- 
tween the poverty of the first, and the strength of the 
latter clause. And we have illustrative usages of this 
word in other places. In Romans 1: 28, the heathen 
changed “the glory of the incorruptible God (τὴν δό- 
kav τοῦ ἀφϑάρτου Osov) into an image made like to 
corruptible man,” &¢. Acts 7: 2, “The God of glory 
(ὁ Θεὸς τῆς δόξης) appeared to our father Abraham.” 
Eph. 1: 17, “ That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
the Father of glory (ὁ πατὴρ τῆς δόξης), May give 
unto you the spirit of wisdom,” &c. In the first of 
these passages the meaning evidently is, “the divine 
perfections or attributes ;” in the second and third it 
is, “the God, the Father, who is possessed of divine 
perfections.” The text then asserts that Christ was a 
bright exhibition to men of the divine perfections. In 
2 Cor. 4: 4, he is called εὐκῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ. In Col. 1: 
15, εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀοράτου. In Isaiah 63:9, 122 3872, 
‘the Angel of his (God’s) presence.’ In John 1: 1, he 
is ὁ Adyos, at the same time Θεός, and in v. 14 it is 


. 


48 HEBREWS, OHAP. I. V. 38. 


said σὰρξ ἐγένετο; and then, v.18, “No man hath 
seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, he hath 
revealed him, ὁ ὧν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός." John 
12:45, Christ says of himself, “He that seeth me 
seeth Him that sent me;” and in 14: 9, “ He that hath 
seen me hath seen the Father.” The assertion, especially 
when taken in its connexion, is exceedingly strong, as 
will be seen by reading from vy. 8-11. Hence in 2 Cor. 
4:6 we read: “Oz (sc. Θεὸς) ἔλαμψεν év ταῖς καρδέαες 
ἡμῶν, πρὸς φωτισμὸν τῆς γνώσεως τῆς δόξης τοῦ 
Θεοῦ ἐν προσώπῳ Inoov Χρεστοῦ. All these 
scripture parallelisms abundantly prove that this pas- 
sage designates Christ as, in his own person and nature, 
the splendid representation to men of divine perfec- 
tions. The attempts made by those of the Fathers 
tinctured with Neo-Platonism, to find in this expression 
a proof for their doctrine of emanation, will need no an- 
swer after the illustrations of its meaning given above. 

καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστώσεως αὐτοῦ. These words 
we may translate, “The image, or impression of his being, 
or substance.” De Wette translates, “ Abdruck seines 
Wesens—the impression of his being.” χαρακτήρ, 
which occurs only here in the New Test. must have 
here the secondary sense given to it, for its first sense of 
mark is inapplicable ; and the parallelism requires it. 
The other word ὑποστάσεως only occurs in four places 
besides this; in 2 Cor. 9: 4, 11: 17, and Hebr. 3: 14, 
11: 1, in all which it may mean confidence. (But for 
the last two the reader is referred to the commentary 
on the passages.) Here it can only have the meaning 


ἘΠΕ ν S,: OBA Poo Bi Be. 3x 49 


of “being,” “substance,” in which all the Lexicons 
agree, as do the old Syriac and Vulgate versions. The 
former of these writes it +2623), and the latter, ‘figura 
substantie 605. The meaning “person” it cannot 
bear; as it does not occur in this sense till the fourth 
century, when Athanasius used it in distinction from 
οὐσία ; affirming of the Trinity one οὐσέα, three ὑπο- 
στάσεις. The phrase then teaches that Christ was the 
representation of very God, so to speak; and finds its 
best parallel and illustration in Col. 1: 15, which has 
been already adduced, εὐχὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου. 

φέρων τε τὰ πάντα, κιτ.Δ.ι The original significa- 
tion of the participle here is that of “ bearing ;” indeed, 
we see in the English word the cognate consonants b, r, 
showing its kindred. From this sense φέρων naturally 
comes to mean “upholding and governing,” both which 
ideas are included here. ‘“God’s works of providence 
are, his most holy, wise and powerful preserving and 
governing all his creatures, and all their actions.” 
(Shorter Cat.) In Numb. 11: 14, and Deut. 1: 9, the 
Septuagint translates sv? by φέρω, in both which 
places, Moses’ whole work, as the ruler and guardian 
of Israel, is meant by it: “Iam not able to dear this 
people alone.” In later Greek writers it occurs in the 
sense of ‘to govern or rule’ Thus, Plutarch’s Lucul. 6, 
Κέϑηγον avdovra τῇ δόξῃ τότε, καὶ φέροντα τὴν πό- 
λὲν. So say Wahl and Robinson, following Passow. 
The reader may also compare Col. 1: 17, τὰ πάντα ἐν 
αὐτῷ συνέστηκε. 

τῷ ῥήματε τῆς δυνάμεως αὑτοῦ we will render: 


+ 


δ0 HEBREWS, OHAP. I. Vv. 8. 


“by his omnipotent word.” So that the rendering of 
the English version, “ upholding all things by the word 
of his power,” may be adopted as entirely good, if we 
give to upholding the ideas of sustaining and governing. 

καθαρισμὸν... τῶν ἁμαρτεῶν ἡμῶν. This expresses 
the “purification,” not only of the moral pollution, but 
also of the guilt of sin. This double work is every where 
through this Epistle ascribed to Christ, and the under- 
standing of it is the key to the meaning of many pas- 
sages. Chap. 9:14, “The blood of Christ ... shall 
purge your conscience from dead works to serve the liv- 
ing God.” ν. 26, “He hath appeared to put away sin 
by the sacrifice of himself.” 10: 10, “ By the which will 
we are sanctified by the offermg of the body of Jesus 
Christ once for all.” v.14, “For by one offering he hath 
perfected forever them that are sanctified.” All these 
and many more passages are made luminous by the 
idea that the author has ever before his mind the dou- 
ble consequence of Christ’s sacrifice, pardon of guilt, 
and deliverance from the power of sin. That the word 
καϑαρεσμὸς Will bear the sense of “ atonement,” is man- 
ifest from the Septuagint use of it as a translation for 
mya2n in Exodus 29: 36 and 30:10. And in Job 7; 
91, "259 MX TaD) wwe NwnoNd M99 is translated dere 
οὐκ ἐποιήσω τῆς νομέας μοῦ Anny, “αὶ «αϑαωρισμὸν 
τῆς ἁμαρτίας μοῦ; The propriety of the same transla- 
tion is also proved by the use of the verb καϑαρέζω im 
this sense in 1 John 1: 7, καὶ τὸ aiud Ἰησοῦ Χρεστοῦ 
τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ καϑαρίζεε ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης ἁμαρτίας, 
“¢leanseth us from all sin.” See also a similar use of 


HEBREWS, CHAP. I. v. 38. 51 


the verb in Hebr. 9: 22, 23, καὶ σχεδὸν ἐν αἵματε tar- 
ra καϑαρέζεταε κατὰ τὸν νόμον... -Avayxn οὖν τὰ 
μὲν ὑποδείγματα τῶν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, τούτοις καϑα- 
ρίζεσθαε, αὐτὰ δὲ ἐπουράώνεω κρείττωσε ϑυσίαες παρὰ 
ταύτας : where the purifications alluded to are the well 
known sprinklings and sacrifices of atonement so fully 
described in the Levitical law. That a true, vicarious 
expiation of guilt is the leading idea in the text under 
discussion, is plain from the adjunct δὲ ἑαυτοῦ; which 
is abundantly shown to be equivalent to “ by the sac- 
rifice of himself,” from a comparison with the parallel 
expressions in Hebr. 9: 12, 14, and 26. Thus, v. 12, 
“Not by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own 
blood (dca δὲ τοῦ ἰδέου αἵματος, blood offered in a sac- 
rificial sense corresponding to that of its types), he en- 
tered in once into the holy place, having obtained 
eternal redemption for us;” v. 13, 14, “For if the 
blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer 
sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying 
(χσαϑαρότηταλ) of the flesh ; how much more shall the 
blood of Christ .". . purge your conscience” (καϑιαρεεῖ), 
&ec.; v. 26, “But now once in the end of the world, 
hath he appeared to put away sin, by the sacrifice of 
himself” (διὰ τῆς ϑυσίας αὑτοῦ). This putting away 
of sin is the χαϑαρεσμὸς of the text, and the διὰ τῆς 
ϑυσίας αὑτοῦ is but a fuller expression of its phrase 
δὲ ἑαυτοῦ. The meaning may also be illustrated by 
1 Peter 2: 24, ὃς τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν αὐτὸς ἀνήνεγκεν 
ἐν τῷ σώματε αὑτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ ζύλον, ἵνα ταῖς ὡμαρτέαες 


? Υ̓ Ὧν r r 
αἀπογενομίενοι, TH δικαιοσύνῃ ζήσωμεν. Here we have 


δ2 HEBREWS, OHAP. I. Vv. 8. 


the clearest possible expression of the idea of a vicari- 
ous atonement (“He bare away our sins, in his own 
body on the tree”); and at the same time, a clear τοῖς 
erence to the second part of Christ’s double work, de- 
liverance from the power of sin. That we are correct 
in rendering καϑαρεσμὸν by atonement (in its true 
Vicarious sense), is also evident from the fundamental 
nature of this work, as it is described in all the Serip- 
tures, and especially in this Epistle. The passages 
above referred to, are sufficient specimens of this, and 
especially the last cited. In accordance with this are 
the best Biblical Lexicons. Wahl’s Clavis gives to the 
word under discussion, as its fourth leading sense, Hx- 
piatio, and cites 2 Peter 1:9, Hebr. 1:3. Bretsch- 
~neider’s Lex. Manuale, N. T. gives: De purgatione a 
peccato, et liberatione ab ejus culpa per sanguinem facta, 
and cites in support the same texts. We sum up this 
discussion, then, by saying: we claim the meaning of ὦ 
proper atonement for κωϑαρισμόν, and its kindred 
words, on the ground, first, of its clear Septuagint 
usage in this sense; second, of the force given to it by 
its adjuncts and contexts in the passages cited; third, 
of the fundamental nature of the work, which is thus 
defined by the whole tenour of Scripture ; and fourth, 
of the testimony of the Lexicons. We have thus care- 
fully settled the proper meaning of this, which is a 
leading word throughout this Epistle, at this its first 
occurrence, in order that we may be able to assume 
our conclusion without further discussion, whenever it 
recurs. In conclusion, the author manifestly uses it 


ἘΣ ΕΣ ΒΕ τ 6. ΘΟ AP. HW. Ὁ. 53 


here, in the comprehensive introduction of his treatise, 
as embodying the sum and substance of Christ’s re- 
demption. It includes all that work, which, when 
finished, left him nothing more to do, but to “sit down 
at the right hand of the majesty on high.” 

In the words ἐν δεξιῷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης, &e., we 
have an instance of the frequent substitution of the 
abstract for the concrete. Nearly the same words oc- 
cur in chap. 8:1, “He hath set down on the right 
_ hand of Him who is majestic.” To ilustrate the pro- 
per force of this expression we may cite Ps. 110: 1, 
“Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies 
thy footstool;” Hebr. 10: 12, “ But this man, after he 
had offered one sacrifice for sins, forever sat down on Ἵ 
the right hand of God, from henceforth expecting till 
his enemies be made his footstool;” and Hebr. 12: 2, 
“Ts set down at the right hand of the throne of God.” 
To sit on the right hand of a throne denotes, in Bible 
usage, honour, approbation, and reward, conferred by 
the monarch. Thus Bathsheba was seated by her son 
king Solomon; and in this sense the saints are elevated 
to Christ’s throne. But in a higher sense it signifies 
participation in authority and dignity. This is its 
meaning here. It should be borne in mind, that the 
Scriptures always attribute this exaltation to Christ in- 
carnate, the Mediator, never to the Adyog, in his original 
nature. It is not his original divine authority; but a 
conferred exaltation and authority, the reward of his 
humiliation. (See Stuart on Hebr. Excursus 4.) In 
his divine nature simply considered, the Son cannot be 


δά HEBREWS, OHAP. 1. Vv. 4. 


exalted. He was already infinite in majesty. And had 
our Mediator been a mere creature, he could not have 
shared thus in the divine glory and government. If’ 
further confirmation is desired, of the meaning claimed, 
the reader may consult Acts 2: 33, 86, Eph. 1: 20, 22, 
Phil. 2: 6-11, 1 Peter 8: 22. He is made head over 
all things; and all powers, principalities, authorities, 
are subject to him. These places settle the meaning in 
others, where the context is not so-strong. 

V. 4. κρείττων may be best rendered “superior.” - 
This superiority of Christ over angels is both in nature 
and dignity; as appears from the Apostle’s previous 
words, and subsequent arguments. He has already 
declared Christ to be the bright manifestation of very 
God, the heir, creator, upholder, and governor of all 
things ; and the son of God. He is about to prove him 
superior to angels, not only in his nature but his fune- 
tions. The translation of zge(rr@y by “ superior” may 
be justified by a reference to Hebr. 7: 7, “ Beyond all 
contradiction the less (τὸ ἔλαττον) is blessed of the 
better” (χρεέττονος), where the sense, and the antith- 
esis to ἔλαττον plainly require it to be translated “ the 
superior.” 9: 28, “It was therefore necessary that 
the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified 
with these; but the heavenly things themselves with 
better sacrifices than these” (xgs(rroce ϑυσίαις παρὰ 
ravras)—* superior sacrifices.” 10: 34, “ Knowing 
that ye have in heaven a better (xgs¢rrova, superior) 
and an enduring substance.” 

γενόμενος. “ Being superior in his mediatorial 


HEBREWS, OHAP. I. v. 4. 55 


character ;” for in this He is considered throughout this 
Epistle, and the passages which the author now pro- 
ceeds to quote, were all applied originally to Him as 
Mediator. The divine nature, however, is not excluded 
from consideration, for it is at the foundation of his 
mediatorial work, and of all these passages. 

Here, then, is the first point to be proved: Christ's 
supertority to angels in his mediatorial work. 'The 
first argument for this proposition is, that he has in- 
herited or received a more excellent name than they. 

παρὰ 15 often used with the accusative in the sense 
of comparison, as in this clause. Similar examples may 
be seen in v. 9, chap. 2: 7, 9, 9: 28, 11: 4,12: 24, and 
in Luke ὃ: 18, 13: 2, Rom. 1: 25,14:5. The usage 
is fully recognised both by classic and New Test. gram- 
marians. (Winer’s Idioms New Test. $53, z. p. 321.) 

zexhnoovounzey we will simply translate “re- 
ceived;” for so the application of the name, in the pas- 
sages which the author cites, requires us to understand 
it. Yet we conceive there is a reference in the term to 
the relationship existing between the Father and the 
Son. This relationship is recognised in Ps. 2: 7, as 
the basis, so to speak, of the formal deed or covenant 
announced in the succeeding verse. Since he is God’s 
Son, he will give him ‘the heathen for his inheritance, 
and the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession.’ 
The verb zezAnoovounxey seems to be used here in 
allusion to κληρονόμον in v. 2, and may receive a simi- 
lar illustration. And the first citation of the author, 
which is from Ps. 2: 7, confirms our correctness in ex- 


δ0 HEBREWS, CHAP. 1. v. 5. 


plaining from that passage the reception of the superior 
name by Christ. 

The word ovoue is by some rendered “title ;” and 
by some, “dignity.” The former is the more correct ; 
for the argument is plainly from the title to the dignity. 
The title conferred shows the dignity imparted. But 
yet the latter is implied, of course; for the Apostle 
would not argue from an empty title. It isa dcagoga 
τερὸν Ovouc; different in its nature and excellence. 
Compare Hebr. 8: 6. 


, Ἁ ᾽ ῇ - 9 f ὴ ’ τ." , 
5 Tin γὰρ εἰπέ ποτὲ τῶν ἀγγέλων" “ Υἱὸς μοῦ εἰ σὺ, 
os tN 4 f f Taare Ἀ ῇ Ἢ ἔς 7, Ν 
ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκα σὲε;" καὶ παλεν Eya 
» J ~ ST r > ‘ » 

ἔσομαε αὐτῷ εἰς πατέρα, καὶ αὐτὸς ἔστωε moe εἰς 

cf 4) c Ἀ “2 ἘΠῚ Γ \ f 
6 viov;” Ὅταν δὲ πάλεν sisayayn τὸν πρωτότο- 
ae \ 3 fy λέ = { K. x μὴ 
xov εἰς τὴν οἰχουμένην, λέγει al προς- 


-ὦ 


ΕΣ > ἘΠ ak - γι ἃ 
κυνησάτωσαν «αὐτῷ πᾶντὲς ἀγγέλοε ϑεοῦ. αὲ 
\ r Ἂ ‘ "ἢ ? eA τ y) / εἰ cee ~ 
πρὸς μὲν τοὺς ἀγγέλους déeyse O ποιῶν 

r ~ 4 \ 
τοὺς ἀγγέλους αὑτοῦ πνεύματα, καὶ τοὺς λεε- 
8 γνοὺς τοῦ "οὺς φλόγα" 2 δὲ τὸ 
τουργοὺς αὑτοῦ πυρὸς φλόγα πρὸς δὲ τὸν 
᾿ ς “4 \ ~ 
υἱόν ““O ϑροόγος cov, ὃ sos, εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα 
- >~ aes ee 4 95 a ? 9. ἐν = eo 8 ὃ - ~ 
TOV GLWVOS θαβὸος suvUTHTOS  VaLOOS τῆς 
, Ps > ᾿ ld Ἢ Ἢ ΄ 
9 βασιλείας σου. “Hyannous δικαιοσύνην, καὶ ἐμέ- 
, \ ~ » f c la c 
σησας ἀνομίαν" διὰ τοῦτο ἔχρισέ σε, ὁ ϑεός, ὁ 
, » > a \ Ἢ , 
sos σου ἔλχεον ἀγαλλεάσεως παρ TOUS μέετο- 
΄Ζ ’ \ , ’ \ 
10 yous cov. Kai: “Sv xar “OZaS, xUQLE, τὴν 
γῆν ἐϑεμελίωσας, καὶ ἔργα τῶν χειρῶν Gov εἰσὲν 
, > > ~ \ /, 
11 οἱ οὐρανοί. Αὐτοὶ ἀπολοῦνται, σὺ δὲ δεωμένεες " 
/ f ’ 
καὶ mavreg ὡς tuariov achawwdnoorvra, καὶ 
Ud ’ } “ ) “ 
12 ὡσεὶ περεβοόλαιον ἑλέξεις αὐτοὺς, καὶ ahhaynoor- 
Ν y Ἁ > 
rac’ ov δὲ ὃ αὐτὸς εἰ, καὶ τὰ ἔτη Gov οὐκ 


7). 


HEBREWS, CHAP. I. Vv. 5. On 


13 ἐχλεέψουσι." Πρὸς τίνα δὲ τῶν ἀγγέλων εἰρηκέ 
more’ “Κάϑου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου, ἕως av ϑῶ τοὺς 

14 ἐχϑρούς σου ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν σου;" Οὐχὲ 
πάντες εἰσὲ λειτουργικὰ πνεύματα, εἰς διακονέων 
ἀποστελλόμενα διὰ τοὺς μέλλοντας κληρονομεῖν 
σωτηρίαν; 


V. 5. The first quotation by which the writer sus- 
tains his position is from Ps. 2:7. The Father there 
acknowledges the relationship between himself and the 
Son, and accordingly deeds to him an inheritance, the 
authority over all nations and all things. The transac- 
tion was one αὖ eterno; and therefore the relation is as 
eternal. It was not first constituted by his incarnation ; 
nor by his subsequent exaltation. Not by the former, 
for his mediatorial power conferred in virtue of his son- 
ship began to be exercised long before his incarnation. 
The voice from heaven, saying, “This is my beloved 
Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matt. 3: 17), was 
but an acknowledgment before men of the Son, now 
incarnate, and thus visibly manifested to them as the 
Son of God by the miraculous conception of his human 
nature by the power of the Holy Ghost. And this 
meaning we may properly give to Luke 1: 35, “The 
Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the 
Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy 
thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the 
Son of God.” The miraculous birth of his human part 
did not constitute him the Son of God, but evinced him 
to be such. Nor was the sonship constituted by his 
exaltation; for the apostles conjointly apply the cir- 


58 HEBREWS, OHAP. I. Vv. 5. 


cumstances of this Psalm to the persecutions which 
Christ suffered prior to his resurrection (and therefore 
to his exaltation), beginning with the attempts of He- 
rod the Great to destroy him, and ending with his suf- 
ferings under Pilate. See Acts 4: 24-28. Nor may 
any thing be inferred to the contrary from the use 
which Paul makes of this passage from the second 
Psalm in Acts18: 83, “God hath fulfilled the same unto 
us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again ; 
as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art 
my Son, this day have I begotten thee;” for a care- 
ful examination of the Apostle’s speech on that occasion, 
will show that he used the passage to prove the fulfil- 
ment of the promise made to the fathers. Compare 
vv. 23 and 32. And this was a promise not of Christ’s 
resurrection; but that he should be raised up as a 
saviour to Israel. Our translators have there rendered 
ἀναστήσας = “raised up again,” gratuitously ; for the 
meaning of the promise is, that God would rear a 
saviour for Israel. In proof of this, the Apostle after- 
wards proceeds, in v. 34, to raise his resurrection as a 
separate point (“Ore δὲ ἀνέστησεν αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν, 
κ.τ.}.), and to support it, quotes a passage altogether 
different, but appropriate. When thus explained, Paul 
makes the same primary and special application of the 
second Psalm, in Acts 13: 33, which the other apostles 
do in Acts 4: 24—28, viz.: to the period of the Son’s in- 
carnation ; and the passage quoted proves the sonship 
of Christ not only in, but previous to his incarnation. 

The phrase σήμερον γεγέννηκ os, confirms that 


HEBREWS, OHAP. I. τ 5. 59 


interpretation which understands here an allusion to, 
the eternal sonship of Christ. The explanation: “'This 
day I have constituted thee king,” is inadmissible, be- 
cause, first, it is by no means established that the kings, 
even Jewish ones, are ever as such, called “sons of God.” 
Certainly there is no instance where one is addressed 
as “son of God.” Gesenius refers us to Ps. 2: 7, which 
we have already repeated; to Ps. 82: 6, “I have said, 
ye are gods, and all of you children of the Most High ;” 
to Ps. 89: 27, “ Also I will make him my first-born, 
higher than the kings of the earth;” and to 2 Sam. 7: 
14, “1 will be his father, and he shall be my son,” &e. 
See the places in their context. The first and last of 
these passages are here applied to Christ, by our Epis- 
tle; and this excludes them from the argument. In 
1 Chron. 28: 6, the last sentence quoted by Gesenius 
is indeed applied to Solomon: “Solomon thy son, he 
shall build my house and my courts; for I have chosen 
him to be my son, and I will be his father;” but it is 
in a different sense from that in which the Apostle here 
applies it to Christ, or his argument is vain. And as 
applied to Solomon, it does not mean, “I will make 
~ him king,” but, “when he is king, I will be his patron.” 
The passage in Ps. 82: 6, is addressed to the theocra- 
tic judges collectively, not individually. And Ps. 89: 
27, 15. manifestly, from the context, to be referred to 
Dayid’s greater Antitype, the Messiah. Let the read- 
er consult vv. 28, 29, 36, 87. Second: the phrase, “I 
have begotten thee,” is nowhere else applied by God 
to any king, in any sense, certainly not in the sense of 


00 HEBREWS, CHAP. I. V. ὅ. 


» making him a king; and such language as God’s beget- 
ting, wherever employed in the Scriptures, means more 
than a mere moral relationship between the persons 
concerned. In Jer. 2: 27, “They, their kings, their 
princes, and their priests and their prophets, say to a 
stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast 
brought me forth.” But this is only an idolatrous 
ascription of creative attributes to a stock or a stone; 
and is made equally by idolatrous Jews of royal and 
of lower rank. In 1 Cor. 4: 15, the Apostle professes 
himself instrumentally the author of the spiritual exist- 
ence of the Corinthian Christians: Ἐν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ 
Ova τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ἐγὼ ὑμᾶς ἐγέννησα ; that is, Christ 
had, through the Gospel, spiritually regenerated them, 
by his instrumentality. The phrase expresses a rela- 
tionship much more than moral between them and 
Christ; and this the Apostle designs to express, as the 
means of magnifying his own claims upon them, as the 
instrument of bringing it about. Third: if the lan- 
guage, “This day have I begotten thee,” expresses only 
the making of the person referred to a king, why the 
boundless inheritance promised? “I will give thee the 
heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts 
of the earth for thy possession.” ‘This question applies 
with especial force to those who understand only a tem- 
poral monarchy to be meant. If all this effort to lower 
the sense of the passage is designed to make it applica- 
ble to a David or a Solomon, then they are but tem- 
poral, local monarchs; and the application of the next 
clause becomes impracticable. 


HEBREWS, CHAP. I. πὲ 5. 61 


Tine yao εἶπέ nore τῶν ἀγγέλων. No angel was 
ever thus called, “the Son of God,” “the begotten of 
God.” They are called “sons of God,” as in Job 
1:0, 2:1, 88:7. With these may be compared Ps. 
29:1, and 89: 7, in the original (O28 33). But so is 
Adam called in Luke 3: 88, “ Which was the son of 
God,” and in the same sense. And God’s people are 
often called “sons or children of God.” Gen. 6: 2, 
“The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they 
were fair.” 1 John 3:1, “Behold what manner of love 
the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be 
called the sons of God!” And the passage has already 
been cited from 1 Cor. 4: 15, where the Apostle rep- 
resents his converts as the spiritual progeny of God, 
through his instrumentality. While the title of sons 
has thus been given to angels, our first father, and 
saints, the argument of this fifth verse compels us to 
conclude that it is in a sense entirely distinct from that 
in which it is given to Christ. They are God’s offspring, 
as they are his creatures, or regenerated by him; Christ, 
as he is only-begotten, and of the same nature. 

καὶ naluv’ Ἐγὼ ἔσομαι αὐτῷ εἰς πατέρα, 2.7.1. 
This quotation is from 2 Sam. 7:14. (The reader is 
requested to consider carefully the context from vv. 
12-16.) The promises there made were to the seed of 
David, viewed as a unit: hence the singular number is 
used. V. 12, “I will set up thy seed after thee... 
and I will establish Azs kingdom. /e shall build a 
house for my name,” &c. This collective promise was 
to be fulfilled partly in one, and partly in another of 


62 HEBREWS, OHAP. I. V. δὲ 


his posterity. Some parts, as the Apostle’s quotation 
now under discussion, were designed to apply, in an in- 
ferior sense, to Solomon as the type. “ΗΔ shall build 
a house for my name,” was directly true of Solomon. 
A reference to the parallel passage in 1 Chron. 28: 6, 
7, makes this equally manifest. But even these parts 
apply in a fuller and higher sense to Christ as the An- 
titype. So we find David, in 1 Chron. 22: 9, 10, reci- 
ting this promise, and in v. 11, applying it to Solomon. 
And Solomon also is seen, in 1 Kings 5: 5, and 8: 19, 
applying it to himself. But while a part of the pro- 
mise can be applied in a lower sense to Solomon, vv. 
18, 14 (first clause), and also 16, evidently look much 
farther than to him: “T will establish the throne of 
his kingdom forever.” “I will be his father, and he 
shall be my son.” “And thy house and thy kingdom 
shall be established forever before thee: thy throne shall 
be established forever.” David manifestly understood 
that a part of the promise was to be extended much 
farther; for he says in v. 19, “But thou (Jehovah) 
hast spoken also of thy servant’s house for a great while 
to come.” Nor can the expressions of duration here, 
piv 7, &e., be degraded, as Grotius does, to mean 
only acomparatively long duration. For their meaning 
is fixed by the parallel passages in Ps. 89, where the 
promise is repeated, and the expression is explained, v. 
30, by nv 27> and 572; and in Ps. 72, where there 
is a reference to these promises, and in v. 17, the dura- 
tion of the kingdom of this seed of David is said to be 
tad 22. It is very frequently the case that in pro- 


BEEBE EW 8s) OMAP. Dy Ver 6. 63 


phecies a whole family or race is viewed as an individ- 
ual; and then whatever belongs to the different mem- 
bers is ascribed to him. Examples may be seen in the 
promise to Abraham’s seed, as explained by Gal. ὃ: 16, 
and the blessing of Jacob, Gen. 49. 

If, therefore, the Apostle seems to any to have mis- 
applied this quotation to the Messiah, it is only because 
he had a deeper and truer insight into the messianic 
meaning of the passage than superficial readers. While 
there are parts of the prophecy which terminate on 
Solomon, or other human descendants of David, there 
are others which can only have their proper applica- 
tion to his Divine seed, the “root and offspring of 
David.” Among these is the passage quoted. In the 
light of the seventy-second Psalm, whose pious raptures 
seem to have been inspired by these very promises, it 
becomes most manifest that the throne, kingdom, and 
sonship are, in their full sense, only those of Christ ; and 
to him were the praises of the Psalmist directed by the 
Holy Ghost, perhaps unconsciously to himself. “A 
_ greater than Solomon was there.” 

V. 6. “Oray δὲ πάλεν, 2.0.2. πάώλεν may here mean 
“alio tempore,” “on another occasion.” So Bretsch- 
neider (whom Stuart follows), supporting his defini- 
tion by reference to John 1: 35, “ Again the next day 
after John stood,” &e. (1 ἐπαύριον πάλεν); John 8: 
12, “Then spake Jesus again unto them,” &e. (Tahu 
οὖν ὃ Ἰησοῦς αὐτοῖς ἐλάλησε), &e. Or, more probably, 
it may mean “again,” not as qualifying the verb εἰσ- 
αγάγῃ, but as connecting what the writer proceeds to 





64 HEBREWS, OHAP. I. Y. 6. 


add relating to the same subject: “ Again, I would add 
another consideration, viz.” &c. Thus it is used in 
Matt. 13: 44, 18: 19, Luke 13: 20, to introduce addi- 
tional illustration by parable: “ Again, the kingdom 
of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field;” Πχάλεν 
ὁμοία ἐστίν, κιτ.λ., &e., &e. In like manner it is used 
in Hebr. 2: 13, 10: 30, to add farther quotations. And 
accordingly, it may be used to introduce an additional 
argument (for the ratio usts is the same), which is 
its sense here. De Wette renders, “Und abermal, 
werm er,” &c. 

εἰσαγάγῃ 18 2 aor. subjunctive. The aorists subjunc- 
tive are currently used with ἂν in the New Test. for a 
simple future. See Mark 8: 88, ὅταν ἔλϑῃ, “ when he 
shall come.” Rom. 11: 27, ὅταν ἀφέλωμαι, “when I 
shall take away their sins.” So Winer, §43, 5. But it 
must be confessed that some indefiniteness of time is 
expressed in all these instances. Here we are compel- 
led to translate the phrase as substantially indicative ; 
and to confess that, as such, it is not strictly classic. 
The nominative to be supplied is Θεός. 

But the question now arises: What introduction of 
Christ is here intended? Whitby, Grotius, Wetstein, 
Tholuck, answer: “ His re-introduction at his resurrec- 
tion and exaltation.” Stuart urges against this view, 
that no first introduction had been spoken of before; 
an objection which is not in itself decisive, because the 
text does not lay the stress upon the fact that this was 
a second introduction, even if understood as Whitby, 
&e., do. But there lies the further objection, that such a 


HEBREWS, CHAP. I. v. 6. 65 


phrase is a very unique and unnatural mode of express- 
ing the fact of Christ’s resurrection and exaltation. And 
this is an event very often mentioned by the sacred 
writers, and especially by Paul, but always in different 
phraseology. Others, as Calvin and Kuinoél, say, the 
words signify Christ’s introduction at his birth ; and to 
support this, refer to the chorus of angels (Luke 1: 
28-85, 2: 8-14) which celebrated that event. But 
there is no evidence that the injunction to worship the 
first-begotten, was given on that occasion. And fur- 
thermore, the conditions of the argument in Hebrews 
require the apostle to argue only from Old Test. Scrip- 
tures, as he does in all the rest of his citations. The 
common interpretation regards these words as a refer- 
ence to some passage in the Old Test. which represents 
the succeeding command to worship the Messiah as ad- 
dressed to the angels, on his introduction into the world. 
And such a reference may receive some illustration 
from the fact that it is a current usage of the Old Test. 
to represent the prophet as doing that which he only 
predicts. See Isaiah 6:10, Jer. 1:10, Micah 2: 12. 
So the introduction of Christ here may be taken, possi- 
bly, to mean the prediction of his introduction. But, 
merely saying that the common interpretation looks 
in the right direction, we will proceed to explain the 
next word, before undertaking the more definite settle- 
ment of the reference. 

τὸν πρωτότοχον is a title of honour, obviously des- 
ignating Christ (and bestowed, perhaps, not without 
reference to his being the only-begotten Son of his 

δ 


00 HEBREWS, CHAP. I. Ὑ 756: 


Father). It is given to him also Col. 1: 15, as before, 
and at the head of, all creation: πρωτότοκος πάσης 
κτίσεως; V. 16, ὅτε ἐν αὐτῷ ἐχτίσϑη τὰ πάντα, #.T.d. 
δὲ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτεσται. The meaning is 
fully defined by v. 17, “ And he is before all things; 
and by him all things consist.” Not that Christ was 
produced in time, as creatures were; only he was the 
first production. But the phrase asserts his simple and 
absolute preéxistence. In like sense he is called, Rev. 
3:14, ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ, “the chief,” &e. 
In Rom. 8: 29 he is called πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς 
ἀδελφοῖς. It is true, that in Hebr. 12: 23 the same 
distinction is extended to his believing and glorified 
people, ἐκκλησίᾳ πρωτοτόχων. Th Col. 1: 18, and 
Rev. 1: 5, Christ receives this title, as the first to rise 
from the dead, πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν. By weigh- 
ing all these instances, we shall be convinced that the 
priority expressed in the πρῶτος is as much one of 
dignity in the nature of his birth, as of time of its 
occurrence. Not only is he the first of God’s offspring 
in time, but the chief, the-preéminent one, of God’s be- 
gotten, in the dignity of the relation. Used absolutely, 
as in this passage, it must be so understood. In Ps. 
89: 27, it is applied to the Messiah, and is the transla- 
tion for the Hebr. term 122. The Rabbins, according 
to Micheelis, called God himself “the first-born of the 
world.” 

But whence has the Apostle taken his quotation ? 
The Septuagint translation of Deut. 32:43 gives the 
very words. But all the copies of the Septuagint do 


HEBREWS, CHAP. I. v. 6. 67 


not concur in this, for a few omit, and one varies the 
reading. It is also wanting in the Hebrew, and all the 
ancient versions. Nor does it suit the context. And 
if it is properly a part of the text, it refers not to the 
Messiah, but to God; and there is no reference to any 
introduction of the object of the worship at that time. 
In Ps. 97: 7 weread moy-b2 SS-nmtn, which the Sep- 
tuagint renders Προσχυνήσατε αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι 
αὐτοῦ. Thence it is now generally conceded the Apos- 
tle quoted; and the differences between this transla- 
tion, and the words as they stand in our text, καὶ προς- 
κυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι Θεοῦ, are not too 
great to admit the probability of such a quotation, 
when we remember that the New Test. writers often 
do not quote the Septuagint verbatim. Kimchi says 
that the Rabbins expounded this Psalm, as well as all 
from Ps. 93-101, of what should come to pass in the 
days of the Messiah. Although there may not be 
enough in the Psalm to compel us by internal evidence 
to regard it as messianic, certainly there is nothing to 
forbid it. We may refer it, as it seems probable the 
Jews of Paul’s day did, to the regal inauguration of the 
Messiah in the world; and then the citation is appro- 
priate. And whatever the critics may say, the trans- 
lation of D8 by ἄγγελοι, here made by the Septua- 
gint and Paul, can be abundantly sustained by the ex- 
amples of Ps. 8: 5 and 138: 1. 

The Apostle’s argument then is, that Christ is supe- 
rior to angels, because God has ordained that they shall 
be worshippers, He the object of their worship. 


68 HEBREWS, OHAP. 1. V. 7. 


V. 7 contains an antithesis, indicated by its πρὸς 
μέν, to the πρὸς δὲ of v. 8. The preposition may here 
be best rendered, “concerning” the angels; λέγει, 
“saith,” i. e. the Scripture, or rather, God speaking in 
them. The following words, ‘O ποιῶν τοὺς ἀγγέλους 
αὑτοῦ πνεύματα, #.r.d., are evidently from the Ps. 104: 
4, o> δ PNW Ninn ἬΝ ney. The sentiment evi- 
dently is, “He maketh the angels as the winds (viz. 
his servants), and his ministers as the flaming fire,” i. e. 
the lightnings. So the Apostle’s argument requires. 
This meaning the parallelism favours; and such is the 
natural meaning of the Hebrew, as may be evinced by 
a comparison with the words 12°25 ἘΠ Ds in v. 3: 
“who maketh the clouds as his chariot.” Nor is there 
any thing in the context to forbid this meaning. It is 
indeed objected, by Hengstenberg and Alexander, that 
since the context refers wholly to inanimate objects, it 
forbids the introduction here of the spiritual or intelli- 
gent. But referring to Ps. 18: 10 (in the Hebr. 11), 
we read, in a similar connexion with the inanimate ele- 
ments, “ He rode upon a cherub and did fly; yea, he 
did fly upon the wings of the wind.” And in Ps. 148: 
1, 2, 3, &e., all the angels and hosts of God are associa- 
ted with sun and moon, stars, heavens, waters, dragons, 
deeps, &c., &e., in the duty of praising God. Besides, 
the interpretation, “ He maketh the winds his messen- 
gers, and the flaming fires his ministers,” makes the first 
clause of this verse substantially a repetition of the last 
clause of the preceding one, “who walketh upon the 
wings of the wind.” As to the idea which has been 


ἨΕΘ, OH APS Evy. 8; ὃ. 69 


urged, that the sense we have above given would be 
inapposite to the Apostle’s argument, it is founded on a 
misapprehension of his scope. He does not intend a 
comparison of angels and Christ, in respect to their 
faithfulness, but a contrast between the manner in 
which they are spoken of (viz, as being God’s servile 
ministers, like the winds and lightnings), and that in 
which He is addressed as a divine monarch, seated on 
an eternal throne. When the Apostle’s argument is 
properly apprehended, it is seen at once that our sense 
is by far the more apposite. 

Vv. 8, 9, present a quotation from Ps. 45: 7%, 8. 
The first ὁ Θεὸς in ν. 9, is in the vocative, as is DOAN, 
in the original. So it is rendered by all the ancient 
versions. The reader may here consult with advantage, 
Hengstenberg’s Christol. p. 91, on Ps. 45, to which he 
is referred for a solid proof of the messianic character 
of this Psalm. His argument here leaves no doubt as 
to the Apostle’s understanding of the original: 4x02 
Sz) ὈΡῚΡ owes, &e. De Wette, who in the Psalms 
translates, Dein Thron Gottes stehet immer und ewig, 
&c., darum salbte dich Gott, dein Gott mit Freuden- 
del, &c., in his commentary on the Epistle translates: 
Dein Thron ο Gott stehet, &e. &c., darum hat dich, o 
Gott, dein Gott, d&e. &e. Here we see operating the 
strongest dogmatism. 

In the passage, the Messiah is addressed as a divine 
being, in his mediatorial capacity—God manifest in the 
flesh, elevated to the highest dignity above all princi- 
pality and power. The proper and full description of 


70 HEBREWS, CHAP. I. vv. 8, 9. 


this dignity may be seen in Eph. 1: 20, 21, “And set 
him at his own right hand in heavenly places, far above 
all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, 
and every name that is named, ov μόνον ἕν τῷ αἰῶνε 
τούτῳ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι." “ He is superior to, 
and has authority over, all in the lower creation, and 
in heaven.” Stuart needlessly concedes that, in these 
passages, the term Θεὸς is applied to Christ in his kingly, 
not in his divine nature. (See Stuart 77 /oco.) Indeed, 
this is a concession ruinous to the argument for Christ’s 
divinity, if his difficulties be carried out. For these 
difficulties would apply to almost all, if not every pas- 
sage which affirms divinity of Christ. They are all 
removed by the obvious remark, that the two natures 
were united in one person; so that in the same context, 
or even the same clause, the attributes of both may be 
mentioned. Thus are the attributes of the divine and 
human mentioned in the same breath, in Zech. 13: 7, 
“ Awake, O sword, against my shepherd; and against 
the man that is my fellow.” See also Isaiah 9: 6. We 
could not have expected otherwise, unless, in his media- 
torial character, he had been only human or only divine. 
In Isaiah 7: 14, he is born of a virgin; and at the same 
time he is properly named “God with us.” In Isaiah 
9: 6, 7, he is a “child born,” a “son given,” “upon the 
throne of David;” but at the same time he is the 
“mighty God, the everlasting Father.” Zech. 13: 7, 
he is “a man,” God’s “shepherd,” and yet, his “ fellow.” 
In John 1: 1, 14, he is God made flesh, and dwelling 
among us. In Rom. 9: 5, he is “of the fathers, as con- 


HEBREWS, CHAP. I. Vv. 9-12. {ΠῚ 


cerning the flesh;” and at the same time, “he is over 
all, God blessed forever.” See also Rom. 1: ὃ, 4. 

V. 9. ἔλαιον ἀγαλλεάώσεως. The quotation is still 
continued from Ps. 45: 8. These words are a transla- 
tion of Ὁ pad. This is not an anoimting of conse- 
cration to kingly office, as is supposed by Stuart. For 
it is the consequence of the righteousness and benevo- 
lence of his rule, not the introduction to that rule; and 
the scope of the Psalm shows that the occasion of it is 
rather a nuptial than a coronation solemnity. The 
anointing is, therefore, one of festive honour and enjoy- 
ment. Such anointings with medicated oil were a spe- 
cial part of Israelitish hospitalities and honours. Thus 
David, Ps. 23: 5, representing himself as God’s guest, 
says: “Thou preparest a table before me in the pre- 
sence of mine enemies; thou anointest my head with 
oil.” In Luke 7: 46, our Saviour says, “ My head with 
oil thou didst not anoint; but this woman hath anoint- 
ed my feet with ointment.” Consult Jahn’s Archeol. 
§148. Asareward for his mediatorial work, Christ 
has been endued by his Father with spiritual honours 
and joys above his fellows. 

παρὰ τοὺς μετόχους cov. Literally, “ Beyond thy 
sharers.” Perhaps the best comment on these words is 
that. which we have already seen in Eph. 1: 20, 21, or 
that which we may find in Rev. 19: 16, “ And he hath 
on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, Kine 
or Kings, anp Lorp or Lorps.” 

Vy. 10-12, are obviously quoted from Ps. 102: 
26-28. With a slight difference in order, they are an 


72 HEBREWS, CHAP. I. Vv. 10-12. 


exact quotation of the Septuagint. Since the Apostle 
here so clearly applies the words to Christ, we must. sup- 
pose the Psalm to be messianic, or run into infidelity. 
Having established the inspiration of the writers of the 
New Testament, we are absolutely bound by their in- 
terpretations of the Old Test. Scriptures; and we can- 
not stop to discuss with German infidels the character 
of a Psalm which they apply to Christ. The Spirit 
speaking by the apostles has a right to be his own in- 
terpreter of what he has said by the prophets. But 
laying this aside, it would be a position not a little 
arrogant for us to assume, to say that a passage cannot 
with propriety admit of an application to Christ, be- 
cause it seems to us to contain no decisive reference to 
him, while at the same time it contains nothing incom- 
patible with such a reference; when Jews, with all 
their superior knowledge of Jewish modes of thought 
and language, and current interpretations, so apply it. 
But let the reader of the Bible study thoroughly those 
passages of the Old Test. whose application to the Mes- 
siah is easily demonstrable from their own internal evi- 
dences, irrespective of the inspired expositions of the 
New Test. Let him thus learn how familiar messianic 
ideas were to the writers. Let him then pass on to those 
passages where the internal evidence of a messianic 
meaning is less, though still satisfactory. And let him 
thus see the manner in which Jewish Christians intro- 
duced and expressed those ideas. He will then have 
no difficulty in believing that those ideas are to be found 
in passages where the marks are not sufficiently strong 


HEBREWS, CHAP. I. vv. 10-12. 73 


to enable us certainly to prove, or even to discern them, 
without the guidance of New Test. inspiration. That 
guidance we must implicitly follow. But we may pro- 
perly claim that there are at least plausible internal evi- 
dences in the Psalm 102, of its messianic character. It 
is not unnatural to suppose that the complaint of vv. 
1-11, is addressed to the mercy seat, through that “ Days- 
man,” with whose offices and divinity Old Test. saints 
are known to have been familiar. And if we also sup- 
pose that the prayer and hope of the petitioner looked 
forward particularly to that era and work, in the fulness 
of time, which are the source of all the help and re- 
demption of God’s people, we shall easily believe that 
“the set time to favour Zion,” v. 18, is the era of the 
Messiah’s ministry. The Jehovah who would then 
arise, and have mercy on her, would therefore be Je- 
hovah Christ. And to this well agree the predictions 
of the conversion of the Gentiles, in vv. 15, 18, 22. 
When was this glorious access of heathens expected 
by the prophets to occur? Indisputably, after the 
coming of Christ. And the close resemblance, if not 
intentional allusion of Isaiah 61:1, 2, &e., to vv. 19, 
20, gives a still stronger argument. For Christ, in 
Luke 4: 21, expressly ascribes that passage to himself. 
We cannot make, with Stuart, the admission that the 
Apostle’s use of the passage is appropriate, even though 
all messianic meaning be denied to the Psalm. 

The words and phrases of the quotation need little 
explanation. ἐλέξεις αὐτούς, καὶ ἀλλαγήσονταε are the 
Septuagint translations for the verbs 97>nm and 72>, 


74 HEBREWS, OHAP. I. τ. 18. 


the one Hiphil and the other Kal from 5% — ‘to pass 
away.’ The Apostle simply follows the Septuagint. The 
translation of the former verb conveys a stronger figure 
than is fairly expressed in the original (to roll togeth- 
er, like a garment which is to be henceforth disused, 
instead of simply to change). But the general sense is 
the same. The whole quotation clearly asserts for its 
subjects, the work of creation of both heavens and earth, 
and the attributes of immutability and immortality. 
And since the Apostle applies them to the Son, he must 
be truly dive. The work of creation, particularly, is 
the highest evidence of divinity which the Scriptures 
can present. See Hebr. 3:4, “But he that built all 
things is God.” Here, then, the Apostle offers the cli- 
max of his arguments, and asserts for Christ that infi- 
nite exaltation which he had briefly intimated in v. 2. 

V. 13. The quotation of this verse is from Ps. 110: 
1. The rendering of the Septuagint is exactly followed. 
That the Messiah is the subject of this Psalm, is clearly 
demonstrated by Hengstenberg, Christology (pp. 107- 
117, Keith’s transl.), and the critical reader is referred 
to his discussion. While it is unnecessary to consume 
space by reciting his arguments, we will add, for the 
benefit of those who may not have access to such works, 
that there is no Psalm whose messianic character is so 
abundantly proved by the New Test. In Matt. 22: 
41-46, Christ expressly applies it (and indeed applies 
the verse here quoted) to the Messiah ; and the Phari- 
sees do not dare to dispute the application. In the 
parallel place of Mark (12: 36), we find the same 


HEBREWS, OHAP. I. v. 14. 15 


statement, with the addition that David then spoke by 
the Holy Ghost. Peter, in Acts 2: 35, 36, applies it to 
Christ; and Paul, in 1 Cor. 15: 25, 28. The Apostle’s 
argument here is elliptical: “To which of the angels 
hath God ever said this? But he hath said it to Christ ; 
witness Ps.110:1. Therefore, Christ is superior to 
angels.” 

V. 14. Οὐχὲ πώντες siol λειτουργωχὰ πνεύματα, 
zt.A. This does not seem to be a direct quotation, but 
the foundation for the assertion is laid in many Scrip- 
tures of the Old Test. Ps. 91: 11, for instance, may be 
cited (“For he shall give his angels charge over thee, 
to keep thee in all thy ways”), and Ps. 103: 21 
(“Bless the Lord, all ye his hosts; ye ministers of his 
that do his pleasure”). In the Sept. As¢roveyoe αὐτοῦ, 
ποιοῦντες, &e. It is to this passage that the Apostle 
most probably alludes. The terms sufficiently prove 
the correctness of our interpretation of v. 7 above. 

“ Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to a 
service,” δεὰ τοὺς μέλλοντας, x.t.4.? This we render, 
in accordance with the regular usage, “on account of 
those who are to inherit salvation.” Christians, in vir- 
tue of their union with Christ, are sons of God, and 
joint-heirs with Jesus Christ. See Rom. 8: 17, Gal. 4: 
7. This verse carries on the Apostle’s demonstration. 
While Christ is a triumphant king, and the saints not 
only his subjects, but his Father’s heirs, sharers of his 
glory, and assessors on his throne, angels are minis- 
ters to the welfare of those saints. How inferior are 
they then to Him? This truth also gives a most con- 


76 HEBREWS, CHAP. I. v. 14. 


soling and awakening view of the privileges of believers 
as enjoying the unseen protection of these pure, loving, 
and powerful spirits. 

The Apostle thus triumphantly demonstrates his 
point. But he also gives us an irresistible argument for 
the proper divinity of Christ. If he whom the Serip- 
tures represent as being in Himself a bright exhibition 
of divine perfections, and the exact image of very (and 
invisible) God, whom they call Son of God in a sense 
proving him higher than the angels; if He whom they 
further represent as worshipped by angels, and as (pro- 
perly) called God, who sitteth upon an everlasting — 
throne, swaying a sceptre of righteousness, creating, up- 
holding, governing all, and subsisting amidst all the 
revolutions of nature unchangeably and forever the 
same; if He is not the true God, whom then can they 
teach to be such ? 


CHAPTER Tf. 


ANALYSIS. 


Tue Apostle interrupts his argument for a moment, 
in order to apply the truth he has now established, to 
the confirmation of his readers, vv. 1-4;gand then re- 
suming the argument, after briefly showing that Christ’s 
humanity argued no inferiority, vv. 5-9, he exhibits 
the reasons of his becoming man, vv. 10-18. 

To be more particular: on account of what he had 
said and proven (Δ εὰ rovro), they ought more care- 
fully to attend to the things which they had heard of 
Christ, ν. 1. For if transgressors of a covenant minis- 
tered by angels were certainly and justly punished, 
those who neglected the dispensation of Christ, which 
effected so great a salvation, and was wonderfully con- 
firmed by divine seals, could not escape, vv. 2—4. 

The resumption of his argument is logical. How 
shall we escape the punishment due to such neglect? 
For (γὰρ) not to the angels has God committed this 
dispensation, v. 5, but to one whom David foresaw and 
foretold, as human it is true (vv. 6-8), but in terms 
which teach his infinite exaltation (vv. 6-8); an exal- 
tation, of course, above angels. For (γὰρ) universal 
subjection is promised, the fulfilment of which is seen 
only in Christ. (Of course, more than the supremacy 
of man merely over the lower creatures in this world 


"8 CHAP. II.—ANALYSIS. 


is meant, v. 8, for we see, in process of fulfilment, a 
higher and more literal accomplishment in Christ.) He 
having been made a little lower than the angels on ac- 
count of the suffering of death, has been crowned with 
glory, that he may extend the benefits of his death to 
all his people, v. 9. 

The rationale (γὰρ) of all this ensues. It became 
God, in saving his people, to perfect the author of 
their salvatioh, i. 6. to bring him to his glorious end 
(rehecaocc) through sufferings; for in the nature of the 
case, the Redeemer and the redeemed are (or must be) 
in all proper respects one: hence he condescends to call 
them brethren; like them he puts his trust in God, 
and he claims them as the children whom God had 
given him, vv. 10-13. Since, then, the children par- 
took of flesh and blood, He took part of the same: 
first, that by his own death he might frustrate and des- 
troy the power of Satan, whose captives they were by 
nature, and deliver those who, in fear of deserved death, 
were all their lives in bondage, vv. 14,15. For (γὰρ) 
He did not undertake for the angels (then, indeed 
[δήπου], he might have appeared in a different nature 
or form), but for the seed of Abraham (i. e. in the 
faith), who were flesh and blood: wherefore, second, 
He must, in all proper respects, be like them, in order 
that He may be a compassionate and faithful High- 
Priest for them in matters pertaining to God, to make 
propitiation of their sins. (Such a High-Priest he is;) Ὁ 
for having been tried to the extreme, he can succour 
those that are tempted, vv. 16-18. 


HEBREWS, CHAP. II. v. 1. fic 


COMMENTARY. 
1 Διὰ τοῦτο Osi περεσσοτέρως ἡμᾶς προςφέχεεν τοῖς 
2 ἀκουσϑεῖσε, μήποτε παραῤθῥνῶμεν. Ei γὰρ ὁ δὲ 


ἀγγέλων λαληϑεὶς λόγος ἐγένετο βέβαιος, καὶ 
πᾶσα παράβασις καὶ παραχοὴ ἔλαβεν ἔνδωκον με- 

8 σϑαποδοσίαν᾽ πῶς ἡμεῖς ἐκφευξόμεϑα τηλικαύ- 
της ἀμελήσαντες σωτηρίας; ἥτις ἀρχὴν λαβοῦσα 
hahsiotac διὰ τοῦ κυρίου, ὑπὸ τῶν ἀκουσώντων 

4 εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐθεβαεώϑη, συνεπεμαρτυροῦντος τοῦ ϑεοῦ 
σημείοις τε καὶ τέρασε καὶ ποικίλαις δυνάμεσε 
καὶ πνεύματος ἁγίου μερισμοῖς, κατὰ τὴν αὑτοῦ 
ϑέλησεν. 


V. 1. Ζειὰ τοῦτο looks back to chap. 1: v. 1, and 
the argument which follows. “Seeing that God hath 
spoken to us by so exalted an Internuntius,” we ought 
to give the more earnest heed to the things which have 
been heard. Τοῖς ἀκουσϑεῖσε represents all that the 
Christians of Palestine had heard, whether from the 
Lord at first hand, or from the eye-witnesses of his min- 
istry, concerning Christ and his kingdom, his nature, 
work, offices, and doctrine. The obligation drawn from 
the majesty of this divine messenger does not limit 
itself to those who were personal spectators and objects 
of his ministry, but embraces all who have sufficient 
evidence that such a Prophet has spoken to them. 

παραῤῥυῶμεν has been interpreted in three differ- 
ent ways: 1. Chrysostom and Theophylact render it 
by ἀπολώμεϑα, ἐκπέσωμεν, and appeal in justification 


80 HEBREWS, ὍΣΑ Ὁ. It Vv. l. 


to Prov. 8: 21, which the Septuagint renders, vis, μὴ 
παραῤῥυῆς ; our version, “ My son, let them not depart 
from thine eyes.” Consult Wolfii curse Philolog. This 
sense of the verb wants the confirmation of sufficient 
usage. 2. From the primary sense of the verb, “to 
flow by,” Stuart (as also Robinson in his Lexicon), 
gets the meaning, “to pass by,” “to neglect,” “to 
transgress,” and appeals also to Prov. 3:21. But the 
Hebr. there is Mara, Awan Tk? WPA Wey a. Ge 
senius gives for the verb, ™>, the meanings, “to turn 
away,” “to depart.” The Septuagint have omitted 
ΤΣ, but by rendering παραρῥνῆς, “to let pass,” 
“depart,” or “slp,” as our translators have done in the 
passage before us, the sense of the original is pretty 
well expressed. Besides, many critics suppose the 
true reading of the Sept. is παραῤῥνη; so that this 
passage hardly proves the sense of Stuart rather than 
that of our translators. (The translation which Sym- 
machus gives of Proy. 3: 21, ΠΡΟΣ 332 ON, μὴ παρα- 
θῥυσάτωσαν ἐξ ὀφρϑαλμῶν σου, is certainly not more 
favourable to Stuart’s interpretation.) The word under 
discussion does not elsewhere occur in the Septuagint 
or the New Test. ὃ. The verb is often used to ex- 
press the passing of things out of the mind, and by a 
natural transition, it may mean “to let pass out.” Thus, 
for illustration, we find Terence saying: “ Plenus rima- 
rum sum, hac et illac perfluo:” a mode of speaking 
common to all languages. Wahl translates the word, 
“ preterlabi, vel elabi patior.” Bretschneider: “ne 
preeterferamur, ne in oblivionem demus promissa.” Cal- 


HEHRREW 9S) ΟΡ τς αν. 2. 81 


vin well remarks, “ Potius consideranda est antithesis 
inter attentionem et profusionem. Nam attenta mens 
similis est vasi bene obstructo: vaga autem et lgnava, 
perforato.” The following context furnishes little help, 
as a ready antithesis is found for either of the senses. 
The one last stated seems to us preferable. 

V.2. ὁ δὲ ἀγγέλων λαληϑεὶς λόγος. What word 
was this? Jn Acts 7: 58, Stephen says: οἵτενες ἐλά- 
Gere τὸν νόμον sic διαταγὰς ἀγγέλων. In Gal. 8: 
19, Paul says: 6 νόμος ... προςετέϑη ... διαταγεὶς 
δὲ ἀγγέλων, ἐν χειρὶ μεσέτουν. In Psalm 68:18 we 
read: ΡΞ "7 D2 ἜΣ Pd "He ὈΠΩΞῚ oA 25. 
Rosenmiiller may be consulted 7 loco. In Deut 33: 2, 
... MIP naaya nny) ... NBD Tint, on which the 
same commentator may be consulted. Jewish tradi- 
tion uniformly asserts the presence of the angels at the 
giving of the law from Sinai. Thus Josephus, Jewish 
Antiquities, B. xv. ¢ v. ὃ, Τῶν μὲν “Ἑλλήνων ἑεροὺς 
καὶ ἀσύλους εἶναε τοὺς κήρυκας φαμενῶν, ἡμῶν δὲ 
τὰ καλλιστα τῶν δογμάτων, καὶ τὰ ὁσιώτατα τῶν 
ὃν τοῖς νομοῖς δὲ ἀγγέλων παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ μαϑόντων. 
The ministry exercised by the angels in this case is not 
understood, nor is their presence at Sinai mentioned in 
the accounts of the giving of the law in Exodus ch. 
19 and 20. But these traditions and testimonies make 
it certain that they were present, and were in some 
sense the assistants or instruments of the revelations 
given there to Moses, and that his system was the 
λόγος δὲ ἀγγέλων λαληϑείς. These institutions of 
Moses were firm, inexorable; and their violation was 

6 


82 HEBREWS, OHAP. II. Vv. 8. 


visited with certain fixed and inevitable temporal 
penalties. 
V. 8. ryhexaurns ... σωτηρίας. Here seems to 


be a metonymy of the effect for the cause: not intro-_ 


duced, however, without design; but to express the 
greater guilt of refusing a system which was so fruitful 
of good to themselves. To reject Christ, or neglect 
what had been preached concerning Him, was to add 
ingratitude to rebellion, and insensibility to insult. 
The particular sense in which the Apostle uses the 
word σωτηρίαν may be illustrated by Acts 13: 26, 
ὑμῖν ὁ λόγος τῆς σωτηρίας ταύτης ἀπεστάλη. One of 
the elements of superior authority in this gospel sys- 
tem is, that it began (under the new dispensation) to 
be spoken by the Lord in person. 

ὑπὸ τῶν ἀκουσάντων εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐθεβαιώϑη. Many 
have hence argued that Paul was not the author of this 
Epistle, by comparing it with Gal. 1: 12, Οὐδὲ γὰρ 
ἐγὼ παρὰ ἀνϑρώπου παρέλαβον αὐτὸ οὔτε ἐδεδώχϑην, 
ἀλλὰ δὲ ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. But it might 
with just as much fairness be argued that the expres- 
sion of Hebr. 1: 1, ἐλώλησεν ἡμεῖν ἐν υἱῷ, is in contra- 
diction to this text, as that Paul could not consistently 
be the author both of this text and of Gal. 1: 12. 
And it might be argued also that ch. 1: 1 proves that 
both the author of the Epistle and the persons ad- 
dressed, had been eye-witnesses of Christ’s ministry. 
But in truth, there is nothing here but a common 
κοινῶσες; and the Apostle is not necessarily included 
among his hearers. Thus, Eph. 4:14, ἵνα μηκέτε ὦμεν 





HEBREWS, CHAP. II. Vv. 4. 83 


νήπιοι. Does the Apostle imply that he also was still 
but a spiritual infant? 1 Thess. 4:17, ἔπεετα nusic of 
ζῶντες οἱ περελειπόμενοε, ἅμα σὺν αὐτοῖς ἁρπαγησό- 
eta ἐν νεφέλαες εἰς ἀπάντησεν τοῦ Κυρίου. Does 
the Apostle here signify that he expects to be himself 
living on the earth at the final resurrection? Or did 
he expect that any of his immediate readers would be? 
This none but infidels will believe. In the passage be- 
fore us there is the less difficulty, because in the whole 
context the first person plural is used. 

V. 4. συνεπεμαρτυροῦντος τοῦ ϑεοῦ σημείοις τὲ 
καὶ τέρασε καὶ ποικίλαις δυνάμεσι. These last three 
terms are often employed to.denote the various mira- 
cles and wonderful signs wrought for the confirmation 
of religion. All three are used in Acts 2: 22, in refer- 
ence to the proofs of the Saviour’s mission: ἄνδρα ἀπὸ 
τοῦ ϑεοῦ ἀποδεδειγμένον εἰς ὑμᾶς δυνάμεσε καὶ τέ- 
ρασε καὶ σημείοις, οἷς ἐποίησε δὲ αὐτοῦ ὃ ϑεός. In 
2 Cor. 12: 12 the same words are used to describe the 
similar proofs of Paul’s apostleship: Τὰ μὲν σημεῖα 
τοῦ ἀποστόλου κατειργάσϑη ἐν ὑμῖν ἐν πάσῃ vx0- 
μονῇ, ἕν σημείοις καὶ τέρασε καὶ δυνώμεσε. They are 
used in 2 Thess. 2: 9 of the lying proofs offered by the 
Man of Sin for his pretensions: οὗ ἐστεν ἢ παρουσία, 
κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν τοῦ arava, ἐν πάσῃ δυνάμεε καὶ 
σημείοις καὶ τέρασε τνεύδους, &c. In the two passages 
from Acts 2: 22 and 2 Cor. 12: 12, the parallel words 
seem to be accumulated in order to construct a more 
comprehensive expression. But in our text, as perhaps 
in the case of πάσῃ with the singular in the third 


84 HEBREWS, CHAP. II. Vv. 4. 


citation, the use and position of ποιεκίλαες militates 
against such a construction ; because, in itself, it gives 
sufficient extent to the meaning. It would seem, there- 
fore, that the words σημεεέοες καὶ τέρασε fulfil this pur- 
pose of amplification (as in John 4: 48, Acts 6: 8, 
7: 36, and in the Septuagint for minpia nins). Then 
δυνώμεσε TAay Mean “miraculous powers,” as in Rom. 
15:19, “ Christ wrought by me... ἐν δυνώμεε σημείων 
καὶ τεράτων, ἐν δυνώμεε πνεύματος (cov); Acts 10: 
38, ἔχρεσεν αὐτὸν (Ἰησοῦν) ὃ ϑεὸς πνεύματε ayia καὶ 
δυνώμεε; 1 Cor. 3: 4, 6 λόγος μου ... (ἐγένετο) ἐν 
ἀποδείξεε πνεύματος καὶ δυνώμεως. And, in connex- 
ion with πνεύματος ἁγίου μερεσμοῖς, it may designate 
the powers connected with the various distributions or 
gifts of the Spirit—a connexion sanctioned by the pas- 
sages just quoted. We find the verb μερέζω used for 
the different distributing or apportioning of spiritual 
gifts in Rom. 12:3; compare Hebr. 7:2. An illus- 
tration of what the Apostle means by these “ varieties” 
and “dividings” of gifts may be seen in 1 Cor. 12: 
4-11. It should be noted, however, that in this sense 
of miraculous power, the singular only is used (δυνά- 
ust, δυνώμεως) in the passages cited; and the plural 
is frequently used for miraculous acts, though in Mark 
9: 39 the singular is used in this sense. 





5 Οὐ yao ἀγγέλοις ὑπέταξε τὴν οἰκουμένην τὴν μέλ- 
6 λουσαν, περὶ ἧς λαλοῦμεν. “εμαωρτύρατο δέ που 
τίς, λέγων" “Ti ἐστεν ὥνθρωπος, ὅτε μεμνήσκῃ 
αὐτοῦ" ἢ υἱὸς ἀνϑρώπου, ὅτε ἐπισκέπτῃ αὐτόν; 





HEBREWS, OCOHAP. II. γι 5. 85 


 Ἠλάττωσας αὐτὸν βραχύ te παρ᾽ ἀγγέλους" δόξῃ 
καὶ Teun ἐστεφάνωσας αὐτὸν [καὶ κατέστησας av- 

8 τὸν ἐπὶ τὰ ἔργα τῶν χειρῶν σου ]" πώντα ὑπέταξας 
ὑποχάτω τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ." ᾿Εν γὰρ τῷ ὑποτάξαε 
αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα, οὐδὲν ἀφῆκεν αὐτῷ ἀνυπότακτον. 
Noy δὲ οὕπω ὁρῶμεν αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα ὑποτετα- 

9 γμένα᾽ τὸν δὲ βραχύ te παρ᾽ ἀγγέλους ἡλαττωμέ- 
γον βλέπομεν Ἰησοῦν, dia τὸ πάϑημα τοῦ ϑανάτου 
δόξῃ καὶ τεμῇ ἐστεφανωμένον, ὅπως χάρετε ϑεοῦ 
ὑπὲρ παντὸς γεύσηται ϑανάτου. 

V. 5. The practical exhortation: being concluded, 
the Apostle now resumes his argument. As was stated 
in the Analysis, this resumption not only carries us 
back into the main line of his discussion (to prove the 
superiority of Christ as a mediator), but aims particu- 
larly to refute just here a possible objection from his 
humanity. The logical connexion of the γὰρ is there- 
fore with vv. 2, 8, and not with ἡτες ἀρχὴν λαβοῦσα, 
z.v.4., a8 Kuinoél supposes. “If the word spoken by 
angels was steadfast, how much more this new word ἢ 
For (γὰρ) not to angels has God committed this dis- 
pensation” (but to one greater than angels). ΑΒ 
above, in ch. 1: 4, 5, the γὰρ introduces the ground of 
the proposition to which it refers. And throughout 
the Epistle we shall observe the same, in passing from 
argument to exhortation, and from exhortation to 
argument. 

τὴν οἰκουμένην τὴν μέλλουσαν. The classic usage 
of οἰχουμένην gives it the sense of “the inhabited 
earth,” especially as settled by Greeks. By people of 


. 86 HEBREWS, OHAP. II. v. 6. 


the Roman empire, it was currently used to express 
that empire (as in Luke 2:1, ἀπογράφεσθαι πᾶσαν 
τὴν οἰχου μένην), by asort of arrogant exaggeration, 
as though the empire embraced the whole world. In 
later usage we find the word meaning “the world,” in 
the sense of all the inhabitants of the world (as in 
Acts 17: 81, κρίνειν τὴν οἰκουμένην ἐν δωκαεοσύνῃ). 
And hence, it is used tropdlogically as equivalent to 
aioy. Buxtorf’s Lexicon Chald. Talmud, Rabbin. 
1620, says: “ Mundum futurum, sive 835 D257; qui- 
dam intelligunt mundum qui futurus est post destruc- 
tum hunc mundum inferiorem, et post resurrectionem 
hominum mortuorum, quando anime cum corporibus 
suis rursum conjungentur. Quidam per 820 5>‘9 intel- 
ligunt man ΤΣ. dies Messia, quibus scil. venturus 
Messias, quem Jude adhue expectant, quod in hac 
mundo temporaliter regnaturus sit.” It is very evi- 
dent that the words τὴν οἰκουμένην τὴν μέλλουσαν 
are here used in the latter sense, as equivalent to αἰῶνα 
μέλλοντει, and mean “the gospel dispensation.” The 
succeeding words, περὶ ἧς λαλοῦμεν, compel us to this 
opinion; for what else except the Christian or new 
dispensation can be understood as the subject of the 
Apostle’s discourse? The reader may compare ra 
τέλη τῶν «αἰώνων (1 Cor. 10: 11), meaning gospel times, 
μέλλοντος αἰῶνος (Hebr. 6:5), and ouvrshslac τῶν 
αἰώνων (9: 26). 

V. 6. The particle δὲ is here plainly adversative. 
“Not to the angels, but to Christ.” The Psalmist 
(“ But one in a certain place testified”) had taught 


ΒΟ BAP Tin gWovn TZ, 8. 87 


that it was to a greater man, this world was put in 
subjection. The periphrastic mode of expressing the 
antithesis by this quotation suggested the difficulty 
which seemed to arise against the Apostle’s argument 
from the humanity and humiliation of Christ; but it 
at the same time furnished the means of obviating it. 
For the quotation represents human nature, which at 
first, as exhibited in Adam unfallen and afterwards in 
Christ, was little inferior to angels, exalted in Him to 
infinite dignity. The quotation, extending from v. 6 
through the first sentence of v. 8, is from Psalm 8: 5-7. 

V. 1. παρ᾽ ἀγγέλους. “In comparison of angels.” 
Compare this usage of παρὰ with 1: 4 supra. That 
the original ΘΙ will bear this translation of angels, 
is clear from the Septuagint rendering of the passage, 
and of Ps. 97: 7, quoted above in 1: 6. It is also clear 
from the use which the Apostle makes of the passages. 
The Chaldee Targum also so renders it in Ps. 8: 6. 
The Septuagint so translates it in Ps. 138: 1, and in 
Job 20: 15 gives the same rendering to 5x. 

V.8. γὰρ here introduces the reason for the im- 
plied application of the passage to the man Christ 
Jesus; or perhaps the ‘connexion of thought may be 
more accurately stated thus: yao adduces this fact, 
that the passage quoted ascribes to the subject of it 
universal dominion, as the ground of the declaration 
that this dispensation was not committed to the an- 
gels: “This later dispensation whereof we speak, was 
not put in subjection to the angels; for, in that he put 
all in subjection under Him (this man infinitely ex- 


\ 


88 HEBREWS, OHAP. II. V. 9. 


alted), he left nothing that is not put under him.” 
But if all is under Him, without exception, a part 
cannot be under the angels. Consult Winer’s Idioms 
N. Test. p. 352. 

We have passed over this quotation without more 
exposition than is necessary to show its adaptation to 
the Apostle’s purpose in this place. It requires but 
little stretch of faith to believe that a passage which 
so easily admits of the application here made, is so 
applied, not by accommodation merely, but in consis- 
tency with its proper original meaning. 


Nov δέ. Here δὲ is again adversative. “Such was 


the declaration of universal dominion. But now we 
see not yet all things put under him,” The fulfilment 
of this promise is not seen as yet, except in its lowest 
and most imperfect form, in the dominion of man over 
the lower creatures in this world; a thing which by 
no means satisfies the high and universal terms of the 
passage. But its fulfilment will be seen in the crown- 
ing of Jesus with glory and honour. 

αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα ... ὑποτεταγ μένα, scil. to Him 
who is the ὥνϑρωπος of the quotation. 

V.9. τὸν δὲ βραχύ τε παρ ἀγγέλους ἡλαττωμέ- 
νον. The Hebrew for ϑραχύ reis 022. Both words 
admit of the rendering, “a little while.” The original 
most naturally requires the meaning given in our Eng- 
lish version, “a little lower,” “somewhat lower;” and 
nothing in the context forbids it. Christ incarnate on 
the earth was a perfect man (as Adam was made by 
his Creator), and therefore, in his human nature, little 








ἘΠΙΒΗ ΝΒ, CHAP. IT. Vv. Ὁ.. 89 


inferior to angels; but yet he was in condition some- 
what inferior. This is proved by the fact that they 
ministered to his necessities, Matt. 4: 11, and in the 
garden of Gethsemane strengthened him in his anguish. 

διὰ τὸ πάϑημα τοῦ ϑανάτου. It is very difficult 
to determine whether these words were intended by 
the author to depend on ἠλαττω μένον, or ἐστεφανωμέ- 
γον below. The position of the words would admit 
either construction, but perhaps rather favours the lat- 
ter, and the sentiment on either construction is com- 
mon in the Scriptures: Christ condescended into the 
human condition in order to suffer death for man. See 
this sentiment expressed below, vv. 14,17. And again, 
Christ’s exaltation has been bestowed on him on ac- 
count of the sufferings and humiliation he freely under- 
went. This is fully expressed in Phil. 2: 8-11; be- 
cause “he humbled himself, and became obedient unto 
death ... God also hath highly exalted him.” Τῷ 
must be said that the latter construction gives to the 
preposition (dz) a sense somewhat more accurately 
consonant to its usage with the accusative ;* and it is 
also favoured by the preceding context, which is still 
evidently in the thought of the author. The exalta- 


* The usual force of διὰ with accus. is to express grownd or reason 
(ratio); seldom, if ever, design. Winer (Id. N. Test. $53. c. p. 318) says 
never. But see John 12: 27, διὰ τοῦτο ἦλϑον εἰς τὴν ὥραν ταύτην. ΤῸ 
see how closely the two senses border on each other, compare John 1: 
31, 1 Cor. 7: 2,1 Tim. 1: 16, Hebr.9: 15. Upon the other construction, 


too, even for the purposes of emphasis, the more natural position of, 


᾿Ιησοῦν would be after διὰ τὸ πάϑημα. 


90 ° -BEBREW ΒΒ, πΑΡι στ Vand. 


tion of the God-man foretold in the Psalm, is still his 
topic; and this somewhat favours the opinion that the 
dependent clause is in his mind connected with this. 
But the succeeding context strongly favours its con- 
nexion with ἠλαττωμένον; for the “fitness” referred 
to in the next verse seems to reproduce a kindred idea 
to that, which would be thus obtained: ἔπρεπε γὰρ ... 
“Tt was fit to make the captain of our salvation per- 
fect through sufferings.” The matter may perhaps be 
best summed up by saying that either sense is admis- 
sible and good. 

ὅπως must have the sense “ that,’ “in order that.” 
It cannot be properly translated “ when,” as Stuart. 
And we may make ὅπως depend on ἠλαττωμένον, put- 
ting the middle clause into a parenthesis, as is prefer- 
red by Carpzow, Beehm, Cramer. Or, dispensing with 
the parenthesis, we may more naturally connect ὅπως 
with ἐστεφανωμένον. The sense which the passage 
would bear, with the former construction, is obvious: 
“We see Jesus made a little lower than the angels... 
in order that he might, by the grace of God, taste 
death for every man.” With the latter construction, 
the meaning would be: “ We see Him exalted, that 
he may secure for all his people the benefits of his 
death.” We are unable to sympathize with the diffi- 
culty which Stuart experiences in this interpretation. 
It finds its illustration in Phil. 2: 9-11. For the sense 
of ὅπως, see Winer’s Idioms New Test. $57 end. 

ὑπὲρ παντός. “That He may taste death for every 
man.” Inall such expressions, and they are numerous, 


PUB RWS, σία». 12.4% 9. 91 


we must fix limitations by other passages which serve 
to define them. Thus we ascertain the persons thus 
indicated to be ‘all of every age and nation who should 
believe on him.’ Compare the use of πώντες, 3: 16 
below. 

γεύσηταε ϑανάτου. This figure may be illustrated 
by the Rabbin. expression sn’ oD. In Matt. 16: 28, 
Mark 9: 1, Luke 9:27, John 8: 52, the phrase is used 
to mean simply dying—“ may die for all.” The evi- 
dence for the vicarious nature of Christ’s death, which 
is contained in the force of the preposition ὑπὲρ (“in 
the room of,” equivalent to ¢yri), should not be over- 
looked. See Winer’s Id. New Test. 851. 9, p. 294. 


10 Ἔπρεπε γὰρ αὐτῷ, δὲ ὃν τὰ πάντα καὶ δὲ οὗ τὰ 
πάντα, πολλοὺς υἱοὺς εἰς δόξαν ἀγαγόντα, τὸν 
ἀρχηγὸν τῆς σωτηρίας αὐτῶν διὰ παϑημάτων 

11 τελεεῶσωαι. Ὅ, τε γὰρ ἀἁγεάζων καὶ of ἀγεαζόμε- 
vot ἕξ ἑνὸς πάντες" δὲ ἣν αἰτίαν οὐκ ἐπαισχύνεταε 

19 ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοὺς καλεῖν, λέγων" ““᾿Δπαγγελῶ τὸ 
ὄνομά σου τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς μου, ἐν μέσῳ ἐχκλησίας 

18 ὑμνήσω os.” Καὶ nahi: “Ἐγὼ ἔσομαε πεποεϑὼς 


᾿ x r Ξ A > T \ 
Kai nahi: ““Ἰδοὺ ἐγω, καὶ τὰ παεδία, 


) 


et αὐτῷ. 
14 « mor ἔδωκεν ὁ sos.” Ἐπεὶ οὖν τὰ παιδία xExot- 
γώνηχε σαρχὸς καὶ αἵματος, καὶ αὐτὸς παραπλη- 
σίως μετέσχε τῶν αὐτῶν, ἵνα διὰ τοῦ ϑανάτου 
καταργήσῃ τὸν τὸ κράτος ἔχοντα τοῦ ϑανάτου, 
15 τοῦτ᾽ ἔστε τὸν διάβολον, καὶ ἀπαλλάξῃ τούτους, 
ὅσοε φόβῳ ϑανάτου διὰ παντὸς τοῦ ζὴν ἔνοχοι 
16 ἦσαν δουλείας. Οὐ γὰρ δήπου ἀγγέλων ἐπελαμιβά- 
γέται, ἀλλὰ σπέρματος “ASoaau ἐπελαμβάνεταε. 


92 HEBREWS, CHAP. II. v. 10. 


11 Ὅϑεν ὥφειλε κατὰ πώντα τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς δμοιωϑῆς- 
val, ἵνα ἐλεήμων γένηταε καὶ πιστὸς ἀρχεερεὺς τὰ 
πρὸς τὸν ϑεόν, εἰς τὸ ἱλάσκεσθαι τὰς ἁμαρτέας 

18 τοῦ λαοῦ. ἢν ᾧ γὰρ πέπονϑεν αὐτὸς πειρασϑείς, 
δύναταε τοῖς πειρκζομένοις βοηϑῆσαε. 


V.10. Ἔπρεπε γὰρ αὐτῷ, x.r.2.__These words are 
thus paraphrased by Stuart: “As all men are, by the 
universal arrangement of a wise and overruling Provi- 
dence, subjected to trial, so it was proper or becoming 
in God, that Jesus should be subjected to trial in our 
nature, before he was advanced to glory in it.” This 
seems to us to give a sense too superficial. The Apos- 
tle looks deeper. It was a transaction which concerned 
Him “on account of whom, and by whom, are all 
things.” In it the glory and majesty of God were in- 
volved. The “fitness” which must be consulted in the 
mode of redeeming rebellious men, was that which 
concerned His attributes, rights, and honour. This 
the author afterwards developes. 

γὰρ introduces, the ground or reason of what he 
had just said concerning Christ. He received this 
humiliation and this exaltation, because God’s own 
nature and rights required Him to make the captain 
of his people’s salvation perfect through sufferings. 

ἀγαγόντα is by many construed with ἀρχηγόν. 
But evidently the sense is far better, not to say neces- 
sary, which refers it to αὐτῷ (God), and construes it 
as the accusative before τελεεῶσαε. Stuart unreason- 
ably objects that such anacolutha of the participle (as 


EE νον. “νον νδμννμν. ὦ. 


HEBREWS, CHAP. II. v. 10. 93 


he considers this would be) are not to be found, all 
the cases of such irregularities which are produced by 
the critics being in the nominative ; and this nicety he 
thinks Kuinoél, who agrees with us, has overlooked. 
But the case is hardly to be considered as an anacolu- 
thon. It is a construction that frequently occurs. See 
Kihner, $307. 1. 2, especially Rem. 2. ὃ, pp. 458, 454, 
where just such constructions as we have supposed this 
to be, are declared to be very frequent; and among 
others the following instances of it are given. Herod. 
3. 86, ἐνετείλατο τοῖσε ϑεραποῦσε λαβόντας μὲν ἀπο- 
κτείνας. Xenoph. Anab. 1.2.1, Feria ixecy παρήγ- 
yeths λαβόντα τοῦς ἄνδρας. In the New Test., Luke 
1:74, τοῦ δοῦναε ἡμῖν ... ἐκ χειρὸς τῶν ἐχϑρῶν 
ἡμῶν ῥυσθϑέντας, λατρεύεεν αὐτῷ, 2.7.2. Acts 15: 22, 
Τότε ἔδοξε τοῖς ἀποστόλοις καὶ τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις ... 
ἐχλεξαμένους ἄνδρας ἐξ αὐτῶν πέμιψαε εἰς ᾿Αντεό- 
χειῶν, κιτιλ. Consult also v. 25. Acts 26: 20, τοῖς 
ἐν Δαμασχῷ ... καὶ Ἱεροσολύμοις ... καὶ τοῖς ἔϑνε- 
σεν ἀπήγγελλον μετανοεῖν zal ἐπεστρέφεεν ἐπὲὶ τὸν 
Θεόν, ἄξια τῆς μετανοίας ἔργα πράσσοντας. 1 Peter 
4: 8, Aoxeros γὰρ ἡμῖν ὃ παραλελυϑὼς χρόνος τοῦ 
βίου τὸ ϑέλημα τῶν ἐϑνῶν κατεργάσασϑαε, πεπορευ- 
μένους ἐν ἀσελγείαες, κιτ.2. Compare also Kihner’s 
Gr. Gram. 8810. ὃ, Rem. 2, p. 460. Winer’s Id. New 
Test. $63. 3 (Ὁ), p. 396. Weare therefore abundantly 
justified in construing ἀγαγόντα with the subject of 
τελεεῶσαε (God). The fitness to be consulted was 
then what became God in the great work of ‘ bringing 
many sons to glory.’ 


94 HEBREWS, OHAP. II. v. 10. 


ἀρχηγὸν is used here, and in 12: 2 below (τὸν τῆς 
πέστεως ἀρχηγόν), and most probably in Acts 3:15 
(τὸν δὲ ὠρχηγὸν τῆς ζωῆς ἀπεκτείνατε), in the sense of 
author. In Acts 5:81, τοῦτον 6 ϑεὸς ἀρχηγὸν καὶ 
σωτῆρα ὕψωσε τῇ δεξιᾷ αὑτοῦ, and perhaps in the 
passage quoted from Acts 3: 15, it means prince. But 
even there the sense is included, that he is one who 
dispenses the benefits of his redemption. Thus, in 
Acts 5: 31, it is added, vwaoe... δοῦναε μετάνοιαν 
τῷ Ἰσραήλ, καὶ ἄφεσεν ὡμαρτεῶν. And so in our pas- 
sage it may not be amiss to attribute to the word the 
combined sense of leader and dispenser: Christ leads 
our way; he protects, he governs, he originates our 
graces, and bestows justification. 

τελειῶσαε is used frequently in this Epistle, and 
throughout, it bears the original sense of “ bringing to 
a full end, perfecting,” though modified in different 
connexions to suit the subject. It is used of the work 
of the law (denying its ability to give perfection) in 
Hebr. 7:19, οὐδὲν yao ἐτελείωσεν ὃ νόμος; 9:9, 
δῶρά re καὶ ϑυσίαε, μὴ δυνώμεναε κατὰ συνείδησεν 
τελειῶσωε τὸν λατρεύοντα; 10:1, ὃ νόμος ... οὐδέ- 
ποτε δύναταε τοὺς προσερχομένους τελεεῶσαε. It Is 
used aflirmatively of the work of Christ in 10: 14, 
Mia γὰρ προσφορᾷ τετελείωκεν εἰς τὸ δεηνεκὲς τοὺς 
ἁγεαζομένους. The noun τελεέωσες 15 used ἴῃ a similar 
sense in 7: 11, Εἰ μὲν οὖν τελείωσις δεὰ τῆς “ευϊτεκῆς 
ἑερωσύνης ἣν. The verb is used of Christ as exalted 
and glorified, in the passive voice, 5: 9, καὶ τελεεωϑεὶς 


, ~ ~ Ld > ~ ” , 
ἐγένετο NACL τοῖς ὑπακούουσεν αὐτῷ αἴτεος σωτηρίας 


BEEBE ws, CHAP. Tis WF TY. 95 


αἰωνίου ; and 7:28, ὁ λόγος δὲ τῆς ὁρκωμοσίας τῆς 
μετὰ τὸν νόμον (χαϑίέστησεν ἀρχεερέα) ὑεὸν εἰς τὸν 
αἰῶνα τετελεεωμένον. Once more it is used, ἴῃ the 
passive, of the saints glorified and perfected in heaven, 
in 11: 40, ἵνα μὴ χωρὶς ἡμῶν rehecaP ace, and 12: 28, 
πνεύμασε δωεαέων τετελεεωμένων. The idea in all 
these cases is evidently that of something which ἐδ 
brought to the completeness of its proposed condition ; 
whether a condition of complete justification, as in the 
eases of the Levitical and New Test. sacrifices, or of 
complete sanctification, as in the case of the saints, or 
complete glory and exaltation, as in Christ’s. The 
meaning here, therefore, may be safely taken as this: 
“to complete the mediatorial work and glorification of 
the captain of our salvation, through sufferings.” 
V.11. γὰρ introduces the ground or reason of the 
fitness asserted in ἔπρεπε above. It should not be 
made to refer to v. 5, as Stuart does; for the Apostle’s 
scope is not to show that “Christ had a human instead 
of an angelic nature.” The objection already answered 
supposed this, as the answer also concedes it. The 
Apostle does not argue in the 5th verse that “ this dis- 
pensation was committed not to angels, but to man.” 
But he argues that “it was committed to one who, 
though the Son of Man, was above all, angels included.” 
It gives to the Apostle’s scope an exceeding triviality 
to suppose that he is thus formally reasoning out what 
needed no proof, because it was fully conceded and un- 
derstood on all hands. “There was a fitness arising 
out of the nature of God, which required that our Re- 








} 


-- τ 5 eg ics 


90 HEBREWS, CHAP. II. Vv. 11. 


deemer should receive his complete mediatorial fune- 
tions and glory through sufferings. For (the ground 
of that proposition is:) there is a necessary oneness 
between redeemer and redeemed.” 

ὡγεώζω, ἀἁγεαζόμενοι, We will translate redeemer 
and redeemed. On the proper rendering of this word, 
which is so frequent and important throughout this 
Epistle, the reader is referred to what was said in the 
Commentary on 1:8, under the term χκαϑαριεσμόν. 
The sense we have given to ὠγεώζω is fully sustained 
by its use in 10: 10, 14, and 13: 12 below, Ἐν ᾧ de- 
λήματε ἡγεασμένοε ἐσμὲν διὰ τῆς προσφορᾶς τοῦ 
σώματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐφώπαξ. Mie γὰρ προσ- 
φορᾷ τετελείωκεν εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς τοὺς ὡγεαζομένους. 
Aw καὶ Ἰησοῦς, ἵνα ἁγεώσῃ διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος 
τὸν λαόν, ἔξω τῆς πύλης ἔπαϑεν. In these places the 
adjuncts προσφορᾶς τοῦ σώματος Ἰησοῦ, and διὰ τοῦ 
idiov αἵματος, plainly determine that the work ex- 
pressed by ὡγεώζω was one of redemption. Its other 
current sense, that of sanctification, is here out of place, 
according to the uniform sense of Scripture. The Holy 
Spirit sanctifies ; the sufferings of Christ atone, and thus 
redeem. Wahl thus defines the word (@), “Purum 
reddo a culpa peccati, 1. e. expio, Deum propitium 
reddo alicui; and farther refers to 1 Cor. 1: 2, 6: 11, 
Eph. 5: 26, Jude 1. But in these passages this sense 
is less manifest. The word is also used in the Septua- 
gint as the translation of 752, where it has the sense 
of expiating. The context here further demands this 
sense. The two ideas, of atonement and sanctification 


HEBREWS, CHAP. 11. v. 11. 97 


or consecration, are so closely associated, that it is nat- 
ural that words which primarily denoted one or the 
other, should come to be used of either, or to carry a 
sense combined of both. To the mind of a Hebrew, 
the two ideas of redemption from condemnation, and 
sanctification, would be associated with peculiar near- 
ness; because in the 037, the thing consecrated to de- 
struction, the loathsomeness and uncleanness, both 
moral and ceremonial, were as prominent as the con- 
demnation. Its dedication to destruction was a dedi- 
cation to a use unclean and abhorrent: hence, its re- 
demption from that condemnation was a true setting 
apart to a sacred use. In order to bring many sons to 
glory, God must both secure their justification and 
sanctification. “ By the one offering he hath perfected ” 
this work “forever.” (Hebr. 10:14.) And this, we 
conceive, is the ἀγεοσύγνη of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
—complete redemption. 

The ellipsis after ἐξ ἑνὸς has been variously sup- 
plied by different critics, so as to read ἐς ἑνὸς σπέρμα- 
TOS, αἵματος, YEVOUS, PUGEMS, πατρός, &e, scil. Adam, 
Abraham, God, &e. But the objection to all these 
suppositions is that they supply, and thus make defi- 
nite, what the Apostle purposely left general. His 
object was to include all the respects in which it be- 
hooved that the Redeemer should be one with his peo- 
ple. Perfectly consistent with this is all the following 
context. The Apostle there proceeds to show that it 
was ἃ oneness not only in race, but in sufferings, and 
temptations, and sympathies: “on account of which 


7 








98 HEBREWS, CHAP. II. vv. 12, 18. 


oneness, he is not ashamed to call the’ redeemed his 
brethren.” The Apostle then proceeds, in 

Υ. 12, to support this, by a quotation from the Ps. 
22: 22 (in Hebr. and Septuagint v. 23). The words 
of the Septuagint are used, except that the Apostle 
substitutes ἀπαγγελῶ for δεηγήσομαε. For the messi- 
anic character of this Psalm, see Hengstenberg’s Chris- 
tol. vol. 1. pp. 180-148, where it is clearly proved 
that the Messiah is the speaker in the passage quoted, 
and throughout the Psalm; and therefore the Apos- 
tle’s application of it is legitimate, and so distinct as 
to need no exposition. For the reader of less research, 
it may be sufficient to point out, that Christ on the 
cross used the very words with which this Psalm be- 
gins: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken 
me!” (Matt. 27:46.) Verses 7, 8 of the Psalm were 
accurately verified in the conduct of the Jewish nobles 
towards the dying Messiah, Matt. 27: 41-48. V. 16, 
“They pierced my hands and my feet,” a mode of tor- 
ture unknown among Hebrews before, was wonder- 
fully fulfilled in Christ. See Luke 24:39. And 
above all, v. 18 is by the Evangelist John (19: 24) 
expressly applied to Christ. So that we have abun- 
dant inspired exposition, independent of the text un- 
der consideration, to prove that the speaker in this 
Psalm is the Redeemer. 

V. 13 contains two quotations. The first, Ἐγὼ 
ἔσομαε πεποεϑὼς ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ, 18 doubtless taken from 
Isaiah 8: 17, where ἢ ")"2?) is translated by the Sep- 
tuagint into these very words, as the same phrase is 





HEBREWS, OHAP. II. v. 18. 99 


also in 2 Sam. 22:3. Some have attempted to find 
the quotation in Ps. 18: 8, ἐλπεῶ αὐτῷ, or in 2 Sam. 
22:38, but incorrectly. The second quotation, Ἰδοὺ 
ἐγώ, καὶ τὰ παιδία & μοε ἔδωκεν ὃ ϑεός, 15 from Isaiah 
8: 18, where these words occur exactly in the Septua- 
gint, and unlike the Engl. version, have a full stop after 
soc, making the sentence end there, as the Apostle 
does in our passage. In this reference the critics gen- 
erally agree. It is nothing to the contrary that the 
words χαὶ πάλεν intervene. They do not necessarily 
imply that the Apostle was citing a different place. 
Compare the quotations from Deut. 32:35, 36, in 
Hebr. 10: 30 below, and from Habak. 2: 3, 4, in Hebr. 
10: 88, where the Commentary may be consulted for 
explanation. 

To see proofs that the whole context from which 
these quotations are taken, has a reference to the Mes- 
siah, the reader may read Hengstenberg’s Christol. 
(vol. 1. particularly p. 848, compared with pp. 319, 
320); Stuart’s Excursus X, and Alexander on Isaiah, 
ch. 8. vv. 16-18. (The last, like many others, under- 
stands the Messiah to be the speaker, and thus avoids 
an unnecessary double sense. The strongest marks 
that there is a messianic reference in the whole passage, 
are undoubtedly to be found in the two passages of 
the context, 9: 1, 2, and 9: 6, the former of which is 
explicitly applied to the Messiah in Matt. 4:15, 16, 
and the latter is restricted to him by many indisputa- 
ble signs. If we do not adopt the higher interpreta- 
tion, with Alexander, we will not, with Stuart, suppose 





100 HEBREWS, CHAP. II. v. 14. 


here an argumentum ad hominem or an argumentum 
ἃ concessis (as in Luke 11:19). The author of the 
Epistle evidently uses the words, as in some proper 
sense the words of the Messiah. Isaiah and his sons, 
whose names were significant, were signs of deliverance 
for Israel from their enemies; and represented, in a 
typical manner, the Redeemer and his children. 

* The two quotations are evidently designed to illus- 
trate, and consequently confirm from the Old Test. 
Scriptures, the assertion made in the former part of 
y. 11, as expressing a great truth necessarily belonging 
to the divine scheme for the redemption of the race. 
Hence the Apostle had already intimated, in v. 10, 
that the redeemed were viove, sons. The oneness of 
condition between Christ and his people is now further 
indicated in this: that He, like them, professes trust 
in his heavenly Father. (So Calvin, Stuart.) Trust 
implies dependence, and this again a nature inferior to 
God; for the Infinite is sufficient to himself. So that 
the glorious Messiah of the Old Test. is found using 
the π᾿ of humiliation. Again, having called his 
redeemed, brethren, he now, in accordance with the 
figure of Isaiah 53:10, calls them children. God hath 
given them to him. (See John 6: 37, 89, 10: 29.) 
The father and the son share a common nature—a one- 
ness is implied in the relationship. 

V.14. ᾿Επεὶ οὖν introduces an illation from the 
“preceding statements and facts: ‘it was necessary for 
the Redeemer to suffer; He must be one with his re- 
deemed people. This He acknowledges in the Old 


HEBREWS, CHAP. It. v. 14. 101 


Test. calling them brethren and children, and acknow- 
ledging in himself a dependence on God similar to 
theirs. Since, then, they were flesh and blood, He 
must appear in the same nature.” The object of his 
assumption of them is now stated. 

iva καταργήσῃ τὸν τὸ κράτος ἔχοντα, κιτ.. The 
verb καταργήσῃ 1s seldom used in the classics, but often 
in the New Test. It finds its best Ulustration here, or 
in Rom. 6: 6, “Our old man is crucified with Christ, 
ἵνα καταργήσῃ TO σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας, TOU μηκέτε 
δουλεύεεν ἡμᾶς τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ," or in 1 Cor. 15: 24, 
speaking of Christ’s winding up his mediatorial reign, 
the author says, ὅτων καταργήσῃ πᾶσαν ἐρχήν, καὶ 
πᾶσαν ἐξουσίαν καὶ δύναμιεν, κιτ.λ.; ΟΥ in 2 Tim. 1: 
10, “Our Saviour Jesus Christ, xerueyyjoarros μὲν τὸν 
ϑένατον, φωτίσαντος δὲ ζωὴν καὶ apitagotay,” z.t.h. 
Hence we infer for this place the meaning, “to make 
of no effect,” “to nullify,” “to subdue, or destroy.” 

τὸ κράτος ἔχοντα τοῦ ϑανάτου, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστε, τὸν 
διάβολον. In John 8: 44 Satan is called the father 
of unbelievers (ὑμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν, x.t.).), 
whose will they do. He is “a murderer from the be- 
ginning ;” an expression which may be explained by 
Gen. ch. 8, where we read that he was the procurer of 
spiritual and bodily death to our race, from its origin. 
In John 12: 81 he is called 6 ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τού- 
rou, where it is also said, νῦν ἐκ,βληϑήσεταε ἔξω. Thus 
also, in Luke 10: 19, he is called “the enemy,” scil. of 
Christ’s cause and Church. In John 14: 30 he is “the 
prince of this world,” and in 2 Cor. 4: 4 “the god of 


102 HEBREWS, OHAP. 11. v. 15. 


this world,” who blinds the minds of them that believe 
not (ὁ ϑεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου). In Eph. 2: 2 he is 
called “τὸν ἄρχοντα τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ ἀέρος, Who now 
worketh in the children of disobedience.’ Compare 
also Eph. 6:12, Οὐκ ἔστιν ἡμῖν ἡ πάλη πρὸς αἷμα 
καὶ σάρκα, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὰς ἀρχάς, πρὸς τὰς ἐξουσίας, 
πρὸς τοὺς κοσμοκράτορας τοῦ σκότους τούτου, #.T.A. 
In 2 Tim. 2: 26 the impenitent are said to be in the 
snares of the devil, ἐζωγρηκμένοε ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ ἐχεί- 
vou ϑέλημα. Τὰ 1 Peter 5: 8 he 15 represented as one 
who περεπατεῖ, Syrov tive καταπίῃ. Hence there is 
a parallel to our passage in 1 John 3: 8, 6 ποιῶν τὴν 
ἁμαρτίαν, é τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστίν, κιτ.λ. εἰς τοῦτο 
ἐφανερώϑη ὃ υἱὸς τοῦ ϑεοῦ, ἵνα λύσῃ τὰ ἔργα τοῦ 
διαβόλου. Compare with this John 12: 31, which has 
been already cited. In Acts 26:18, Paul was called 
into the work of the ministry τοῦ ἐπεστρέψαε ἀπὸ ... 
τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ Σατανᾶ ἐπὶ τὸν ϑεόν. .From a com- 
parison of these passages, we learn that Satan is ‘the 
prince of darkness and spiritual death,’ wielding im- 
mense and destructive power over the ungodly, who 
are his children and servants. The clause under dis- 
cussion simply asserts that Christ, by his death, struck 
the deadly blow at his power. He became man in 
order that he might die, and thus lay the foundation 
for the destruction of Satan’s power and kingdom. 
Here, again, the full benefits of redemption are in- 
_ cluded in the Apostle’s meaning. 
_ V. 15. καὶ ἀπαλλάξῃ τούτους. This verb evi- 
dently expresses a deliverance from bondage—a bond- 


HEBREWS, OHAP. τὰ. v: 1d. 108 


age to Satan, sin, and guilt. This is shown by what 
precedes and what follows. For illustration, compare 
John 8: 31-36, πῶς ὃ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν δοῦλός ἔστε 
τῆς ἁμαρτίας ... ᾿Εὰν οὖν ὁ υἱὸς ὑμᾶς ἐλευϑερώσῃ, 
ὄντως ἐλεύϑεροε ἔσεσϑε. 

ὅσοι φόβῳ ϑανάτου. Here ϑανάτου must denote, 
as so often in the Scriptures, ‘the penalty due to sin,’ 
including of course temporal death, and every other 
penal evil. As instances in which the word must have 
this general meaning, see Genesis 2: 17, “ In the day 
that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.” That 
which occurred on the day of Adam’s transgression 
was not actual bodily death, but his spiritual death, 
with his subjection to bodily death, and all the sorrows 
of life. In Ezek. 18: 4 it is said, “The soul that sin- 
neth, it shall 416.) In Rom. 5: 12, dca τῆς ὡμαρτέας 
ὁ ϑάνατος; 6: 38, Τὰ γὰρ ὀψώνια τῆς ἁμαρτίας, 
ϑώνατος. In this passage it is set in antithesis to Can 
αἰώνεος, which “is the gift of God by Jesus Christ.” 
The fear of death, therefore, from which believers are 
delivered through Christ’s death, is something much 
more extensive than the mere animal fear of the disso- 
lution of the body. It includes that sense of guilt, 
and dread of divine wrath, which the natural con- 
science inspires in all, and which spiritual convictions 
produce, in the most pungent degree, in those who are 
brought to Christ. 

ἔνοχοε δουλείας. This construction is common 
either with the genitive or dative. The bondage may 
be, as Calvin and others say, to guilty and dreadful 


104 HEBREWS, CHAP. II. v. 16. 


fears. But if we understand it thus, there is a repeti- 
tion of sense which we cannot impute to the Apostle: 
‘Those who, through fear of the consequences of guilt, 
are all their lifetime subject to the bondage of guilty 
fears’ Such would be the tautology. The words 
seem rather to mean the bondage in which sinners are 
held by Satan, which is a bondage of sin, and conse- 
quently of just exposure to punishment by God. So 
the antithesis of the members of the sentence seems to 
demand. Fearful and guilty anticipations are a strong 
element in the bondage of the sinner; and this is ex- 
pressed by the words φόϑῳ ϑανάτου. 

The verse then strongly expresses the full benefits 
of redemption; the undoing of Satan’s kingdom and 
power, and the doing away of guilt, with the dreadful 
sense of it. According to prophecy, it is a redemption 
from captivity. 

V.16. The verb ἐπελαμι βάνεταε would most nat- 
urally mean, ‘to take hold of? for any purpose. In 
Matt. 14: 31 (Εὐϑέως δὲ 0 Ἰησοῦς ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα, 
ἐπελώβετο avrov), it means to take hold of, in order 
to help. In Luke 14:4 (καὶ ἐπελαβόμενος ἰάσατο 
αὐτόν, καὶ ἀπέλυσεν, It signifies to take hold of, to 
heal. These passages sufficiently illustrate the mean- 
ing here: “For he does not take hold of angels (for 
the purpose of redemption), but he takes hold of the 
seed of Abraham.” Calvin is not here to be imitated 
in his rendering, ‘ Nusquam enim Angelos assumit.’ 
The present here can hardly be rendered for the 
preterite tense; it is rather to be understood as an 


HEBREWS, CHAP. 11. v. 16. 105 


instance of the narrative present for the past; a usage 
so common in Greek. Wimner’s Id. $41. 2. ¢. 

yao. The reference of this particle in the 16th 
verse may be compared to that which it has in the 
5th. (There, its force, as was explained, is this: “How 
shall we escape if we neglect this salvation, spoken by 
one greater than angels; (γὰρ) for, not unto angels 
did he subject the coming dispensation of which we 
speak.” Here its force is, “ He partook with the chil- 
dren of flesh and blood (v. 14), (γὰρ) for, he does not 
take hold of the angels, but of the seed of Abraham.” 
At the same time, the 16th verse is prospective in its 
connexion, and prepares the way for the next reason, 
v.17. Hence that verse is introduced by the illative 
particle oer. 

σπέρματος ‘AGoaau must signify Abraham’s spir- 
itual seed, believers; for Christ’s help was not con- 
fined to his lineal descendants, the Jews, nor did all 
of them share it. This use of the expression is most 
distinctly established by the definitions of the Apostle 
himself. See Gal. 8: 7-9, Γινωσχετε aoa, Ore οἱ ἐκ 
alorews, οὗτοί εἰσεν υἱοὶ “ASoacu, κιτ.ιΔ. Rom. 4:11, 
καὶ σημεῖον ἔλαβε περιτομῆς . .. εἰς τὸ εἶναε αὐτὸν 
πατέρα πάντων τῶν πιστευόντων δὲ ἀκροβυστίας... 
Moh? χαὶ πατέρα περιτομῆς, τοῖς οὐκ EX περετομῆς 
μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς στοιχοῦσε τοῖς ἔχνεσε τῆς ἕν 
ἀκροβυστίᾳ πίστεως τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν ASoaau. Rom. 
9:6, ἴ, Οὐ γὰρ πάντες of ἐξ Ἰσραήλ, οὗτοε Ἰσραήλ᾽ 
ὀυδ᾽ ὅτε εἰσὶ σπέρμα ᾿Αβραώμ, πάντες τέκνα, ἀλλά, 


κιτιλ. Still, while the words indicate Abraham’s spir- 


106 HEBREWS, OHAP. 11. v. 1%. 


itual children, the argument shows that the idea of 
their humanity, of their -participation σαρκὸς καὶ 
αἵματος (Vv. 14), is prominent. 

V.17. ὅϑεν may be rendered “ wherefore.” Since 
he undertook for the seed of Abraham, it became him 
to be made, in all (suitable) respects, like them. We 
now have a more definite amplification of that one- 
ness between Him and His people which was asserted 
in v. 11. 

iva expresses the purpose for which He must be- 
come like his people, i. 6. must become a man, under 
law, and liable to all human temptations and suffer- 
ings: in order to be a suitable priest. 

ἐλεήμων καὶ πεστὸς ἀρχεερεύς. A high-priest 
fully fitted for his work, able to sympathize, and 
faithful to mediate in behalf of his people. Such he 
could not be, without becoming man. While we must 
believe that the divine omniscience, without an incar- 
nation of the Son in human nature, would see and 
fully appreciate all the trials of the saints, and while 
we must believe that the divine mercy and pity are 
not less tender than those of a perfect man, since the 
divine is the source and pattern of the human; yet 
every believer feels how much more familiar and con- 
soling is the sympathy of a Redeemer who is both 
God and our brother. The Daysman lays his hands 
upon Loth parties. He must be not only adapted to 
reconcile a justly offended God to man, but to allure 
man, full of guilty fears and doubts, to God. And in 
the atoning part of his priesthood it was equally neces- 


HEBREWS, CHAP. II. v. 17. 107 


sary that Christ should partake of human nature, both 
in order to suffer, and in order to ground a proper im- 
putation by which his sufferings might avail for us. 

εἰς τὸ thacxeowace expresses the purpose for which 
Christ became ἐλεήμων καὶ πεστὸς ἀρχιερεύς. This 
is a well known and frequent usage of this preposition 
with the infinitive. See the Lexicons. Winer’s Id. 
New Test. $45. 6, p. 259. Examples of the same use 
of εἰς with infin. may be seen in 1 Cor. 10: 6, Ταῦτα 
δὲ τύποε ἡμῶν ἐγενήϑησαν, εἰς TO μὴ εἶναε ἡμᾶς ἐπε- 
ϑυμητὰς κακῶν, καϑὼς κἀκεῖνοι. 2 Cor.'7: 8, προεί- 
onxa yuo, ὅτε ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν ἔστε εἰς τὸ 
συναποϑανεῖν καὶ συζῆν. In 2 Cor. 8:5 we have 
an instance of the same construction, carrying the 
sense of result; one kindred to the former, ἀλλ᾽ 
ἑαυτοὺς ἔδωκαν πρῶτον τῷ “χυρίῳ καὶ ἡμῖν διὰ ϑὲ- 
λήματος ϑεοῦ" εἰς τὸ παραχαλέσαε ἡμᾶς Tiror, 
χκιτ.λ., “Insomuch that we urged Titus,” &e. ἡλάσκε- 
otuc is in the middle voice, and may be translated 


“to appease,” “ 


propitiate.” Itis used in this sense, 
connected with τοῦ ϑεοῦ, in Josephus, Antiquities, 
6. 6. 5, and Xenophon, Oec. 5. 20 (τοὺς ϑεούς). 
Thence it naturally obtained the meaning, “ propiti- 
ate,” as to sin; that is, “to make propitiation for 
sins,” because in Scripture view the divine anger is 
only caused by sins. In Psalm 65: 4, D752p Ans "LTE 
is rendered in the Septuagint, τὰς ἀσεβεῖας ἡμῶν σὺ 
ἱλάσῃ: “Our transgressions, thou shalt purge them 
away,” i.e. forgive them. The compound verb used 
by the Septuagint in 1 Sam. 8: 14 is far better adapt- 


108 HEBREWS, CHAP. Il. v. 18. . 


ed to express the exact sense of our passage: ὥμοσα 
τῷ οἴκῳ Hhi, εἰ ἐξελασϑήσεταε ἀδικία οἰκοῦ “Hii, ἐν 
ϑυμειώματε, καὶ ἐν ϑυσίαις, ἕως αἰῶνος; where the 
Hebrew is, 9 ma fiz "pon? ox, &e. Both the sense 
and construction of the text are well illustrated by 
Dan. 9: 24, a part of the well known prophecy of 
seventy weeks, in which the atoning work of Christ is 
foretold: “Seventy weeks are determined upon,” &c.: 
τοῦ ἐξιλάσασίϑαε ἀδικίας ; in the Hebrew, 2 72>. 

V.18. Ἐν 6. Hebrew, 1tx2; English, “Zn that.” 
A similar use of the phrase may be seen in 1 Peter 2: 
12 and Rom. 2:1, 8:3. γὰρ gives the ground or 
reason for the propriety asserted in the 17th verse, 
suggesting at the same time the rationale of the mat- 
ter. The same idea is illustrated more fully in 4: 15, 
16. It is true that almighty power and infinite wis- 
dom would be, in themselves considered, adequate to 
our succour, without an incarnation; but the adapta- 
tion of Christ to our help depended, in the economy 
of God’s government, on his partaking in our suffer- 
ings and temptations. ; 

Thus the Apostle shows that the ἱηῤανα 86 and 
humiliation of Christ, which the Jews used as an argu- 
ment of his inferiority, were foretold in their own 
Scriptures, and were the necessary grounds of his re- 
deeming functions, and of our comfort in believing. 


CHAP FER LLL. 


ANALYSIS. 


From the views of Christ just presented, the author 
takes occasion again to commend Him to the diligent 
attention of the Hebrew Christians, v. 1; claiming for 
Him the faithfulness in his commission, which he con- 
cedes to Moses in the station he occupied, v. 2; and 
thus he introduces a comparison between the two 
(which is the second main topic of the Epistle), vv. 
2-6. In this comparison, with a view to sustain his 
exhortation (γάρ), and to secure the great object of 
his writing the Epistle, he demonstrates the superior- 
ity of Christ over Moses; declaring, 1st, that the com- 
parative honour due to Moses was to that due to Christ, 
as the honour due a house is to the builder or founder 
of it; for (γὰρ) Christ was the divine Disposer of all 
things (see, in proof of this, ch. 1), including the cere- 
monial dispensation in which Moses was a minister (ἐν 
ὅλῳ τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ), VV. 3,4; and declaring, 2nd, that 
Moses was merely a steward, or minister (ϑεράπων) 
in the economy (ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ οἴκῳ) to which he be- 
longed, while Christ was a Son (vos) over (ἐπί), or at 
the head of His dispensation, vv. 5, 6; in which dis- 
pensation both the author and his readers had saving 
interest, if they held firm to the end, v. 6. 

(4.0.) Hence he again exhorts them against apos- 
tacy, vv. 7-19; reminding them, by a quotation from 


110 CHAP. III.—ANALYSIS. 


the 95th Psalm, of the conduct and end of their fathers, 
when in the wilderness they tried the goodness and 
forbearance of God, by disaffection and distrust, till 
they provoked the curse of exclusion from his rest, 
vy. 7-11; he admonishes them against like unbelief 
and apostacy, and to exhort one another daily against 
a like hardening by the deceitful workings of sin; 
telling them again, for their incitement (γάρ), that 
perseverance in the faith was the proof of an interest 
in Christ ; and urging them by no means to tread in 
the footsteps of their fathers, vv. 12-15; for (γὰρ) 
they all, with few exceptions, grieved God, and per- 
ished in the wilderness, and thus were cut off from the 
promised rest, by sin and unbelief, vv. 16-19. 


~ 


—— = _-_ ” =” * _ or ὐδω «δπνιν. μὩ. “κ... 


HEBREWS, ‘OHAP. 111. v. 1. 1: 


COMMENTARY. 


1 “Oder, ἀδελφοὶ ἅγεοει, κλήσεως ἐπουρανίου μέτοχοε, 
κατανοήσατε τὸν ἀπόστολον καὶ ἀρχιερέα τῆς ὅμο- 
λογίας ἡμῶν, [ Χριστὸν] Ἰησοῦν" πιστὸν ὄντα τῷ 

2 ποιήσαντε αὐτόν, ὡς καὶ Μωῦσῆς ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ οἴκῳ 

8 αὐτοῦ. Πλείονος γὰρ δόξης οὗτος παρὰ Μωῦσῆν 
ἠξίωταε, xaF ὅσον πλείονα τεμὴν ἔχεε τοῦ οἴκου ὁ 

4 κατασκενάσας αὐτόν. (Πᾶς γὰρ οἶκος κατασχευά- 
Cera ὑπὸ τινός" ὃ δὲ τὰ πάντα κατασκενάσας, 

ὅ ϑεός) Kat Matos μὲν πιστὸς ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ οἰκῷ 
αὐτοῦ, ὡς ϑεράπων, εἰς μαρτύριον τῶν λαληϑησο- 

6 μένων" Χριστὸς δέ, ὡς υἱὸς ἐπὶ τὸν οἶχον αὐτοῦ" 
οὗ οἶκός ἐσμεν ἡμεῖς, ἐάνπερ τὴν παῤῥησίαν καὶ 
τὸ χαύχημα τῆς ἐλπέδος μέχρε τέλους βεβαίαν 
κατάσχωμεν. 


V.1. The introductory particle, σϑεν, evidently 
refers to the scope of the previous chapter, especially 
of its conclusion; in which Christ is represented as 
having come in our nature, in order to make atone- 
ment for our sins, and sympathizing with us in all our 
trials, to deliver us from bondage, and bring us back 
to God. 

ἀδελφοὶ ayto. The use of the word ἀδελφοὶ to 
denote church members, or fellow professors of Chris- 
tianity, by the primitive Christians, is too well known 
to need remark. The Apostle applies the term cycoz 
to them, Ist, as consecrated, or set apart to the service 
of God. In this sense it is common in the Old Test. 


112 $$$$HEBREWS, OHAP. τοῦ; Vv. 1. 


(Hebr. tisp, translated by the Septuagint ὥγεος) as 
well as in the New Test.; and is applied to persons 
(not spiritually holy), places, days, and material and 
inanimate things. Instances in great numbers will 
suggest themselves to every diligent Bible reader; 
and any of the New Test. Lexicons will give a suffi- 
ciently accurate definition of this sense. An interest- 
ing example may be seen in 1 Cor. 7: 14, where the 
children, either of whose parents is a believer, are said 
to be holy, i. e. consecrated to God, as subjects of his 
visible kingdom. But, 2nd, the term is applied to 
Christians as sanctified by the Holy Spirit, of which 
they are made partakers. In this sense of moral holi- 
ness, it is more commonly to be understood, when we 
find it in the New Test. applied to persons. In Mark 
6:20, John is called ἄνδρα δώκωεον καὶ ἅγεον. A 
good definition of these senses may be seen in Hodge 
on Rom. 11:16. Of course, when such terms are 
applied generally to a class of persons, by a sacred 
writer, they do not assert moral purity of each indi- 
vidual. They are to be taken as proving no more on 
this point, than that such holiness ought to be the 
usual trait of Christians. Neither does the application 
of the term determine the degree of sanctification; all 
are ἅγεοι, in whom the Holy Spirit works savingly, 
though they be but babes in Christ. 

κλήσεως ἐπουρανίου μέτοχοι. κλήσες in the New 
Test. always means the Christian call (except perhaps 
in 1 Cor. 7: 20); often the effectual call by the Spirit; 
sometimes merely the outward by the word (see Matt. 


—— eee eee ne eee 


HEBREWS, CHAP. Ill. Vv. 1. 113 


20:16, πολλοὶ yao εἰσε κλητοί, ὀλίγοε δὲ éxhe- 
zrot). Compare with the passage under discussion, 
Eph. 4: 1, “ Walk worthy of the vocation wherewith 
ye are called” (ἄξεοε τῆς κλήσεως). It is called “λή- 
σεως ἐπουρανίου, both because it is a call that comes 
from heaven, and because it summons us heavenward. 
Kindred is the expression of Paul in Phil. 3: 14, to 
this latter idea, “I press towards the mark for the 
prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus” (ἐπὲ 
τὸ βραβεῖον τῆς ἄνω κλήσεως τοῦ ϑεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ 
᾿Ιησοῦ, “the call upward”). And these ideas recur 
twice in our Epistle below. Thus 11: 14 and 16, Οἱ 
γὰρ τοιαῦτα λέγοντες ἐμφανίζουσεν, Ore πατρέδα ἐπε- 
ζητοῦσε... νυνὶ δὲ κρείττονος (πατρεδὸς) ὀρέγονταε, 
τοῦτ᾽ ἔστεν, ἐπουρανίου. And 12 : 25, He who claims 
the service of Christians is one λαλῶν ax οὐρανῶν. 
The idea of separation from the world and consecra- 
tion to God is prominent in the New Test. κλῆσες. 
The called are called out from the world; hence ἐκ- 
zhnota. Hence also the Apostle twice (Rom. 1: 7, 
1 Cor. 1: 2) connects with it the word @yzog, “λητοῖς 
ayiore, Which the Engl. version renders, ‘called to be 
saints.’ 

ἀπόστολον. In the great majority of cases, this 
word is used definitely to describe “the Twelve.” In 
Acts 14: 14 itis used of Paul and Barnabas, on the 
occasion of the proposed idolatrous sacrifice to them 
by the people of Lystra: ᾿“χούσαντες δὲ οἱ ἀπόστολοι 
Βαρνώβας zai Παῦλος, 2.r.2., where two interpreta- 
tions present themselves; either to render it ‘missiona- 

8 


114 HEBREWS, OHAP. III. Vv. l. 


ries’ (sent by the Antiocheian Church, Acts 13: 3, 4), 
or to regard it as applied in its proper official sense to 
Barnabas, making him equal with the Twelve. When 
found connected with adjuncts other than the names 
of our Lord (as of τῶν ἐχκλησίων ἀπόστολοε), it means 
simply the “ messengers,” conveyers of the alms of the 
Churches. This is undoubtedly the sense in Phil. 2: 
25, where it is applied to Ἐπαφρόδετον --- ἡ μῶν δὲ 
ἀπόστολον, and 2 Cor. 8:23, ἀπόστολοι ἐκκλησεῶν. 
The passage in Rom. 16: 7 (οἵτενές εἰσεν ἐπίσημοε ἐν 
τοῖς ἀποστόλοις), Is most probably not to be under- 
stood as saying that Andronicus and Junia (the latter 
most likely a woman) were ἀπόστολοι in any sense ; 
but as meaning that they were highly esteemed by the 
apostles. See Hodge im loco. The expression in John 
13: 16 is instructive, as showing the transition from 
the general to the particular signification: Remember 
that the persons here addressed are the Twelve, ‘ ovx 
ἔστε δοῦλος μείζων τοῦ κυρίου αὑτοῦ, οὐδὲ ἀπόστολος 
μείζων τοῦ πέμψαντος αὐτόν The passage under 
discussion presents the only instance where it is used 
of Christ, although the references are very frequent to 
that ‘mission’ by the Father, which is the ground of 
the application of this term to Him. John 30: 21, 
χαϑὼς ἀπέσταλκέ μὲ ὃ πατήρ, κἀγὼ ὑμᾶς, ἄς. In 
John 3:34 He is ὃν ἀπέστειλεν 6 ϑεός. John 10: 86, 
ὃν ὃ πατὴρ ἡγίασε, καὶ ἀπέστειλεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον. 
As here applied to Christ, the term ἀπόστολος seems 
to have reference to the comparison with Moses which 
immediately ensues, and is grounded upon the fore- 


HEBREWS, CHAP. III. v. 1. 115 


_going exhibition of Christ, as the one to whom was 
‘committed the second dispensation (see 2:5), who 
first preached the gospel to us (2: 3), who took our 
nature (2: 10-18), who died for our sins (2:9, 14, 
17), and who was exalted over all to extend the bene- 
fits of his redemption to all believers (2: 9,18). The 
use of the word ἀπόστολος for Christ, hints, therefore, 
at the same reference which is contained in the intro- 
ductory word of the sentence, o%sy. Stuart illustrates 
it by regarding it as an imitation of the Taxm md of 
the Jewish synagogues; but this seems to us unnatu- 
ral and not plausible. Moses was the ἀπόστολος of 
the first dispensation (see how often his “ mission” 
is spoken of in Exod. 3:10 seqq.); Christ of the 
second. 

aoxteosa seems in like manner to be introduced by 
the author, to connect the foregoing context with the 
other great view of Christ (scil. as a Priest) which 
remained to be taken, from ch. 4:14 to 10:18. In 
calling Christ a priest, there is a manifest reference to 
2:17, 18, where his priestly character and atoning 
work had been stated. And the prominent statement 
of this function here, is no doubt intended to suggest 
that comparison which is run in the subsequent con- 
text, between Christ and the Aaronic priesthood. 
And thus, as the author had passed easily and natu- 
rally from argument to exhortation, he now slides, 
in like manner, from exhortation back to argument. 
The character of Christ which is here properly intro- 
duced in the exhortation, as that of ἀπόστολος καὶ 


116 HEBREWS, CHAP. III. vy. l. 


ἀρχεερεύς combined, is not again stated in the ensuing 


comparison. Calvin well observes, on the 2nd verse, — 


“ Omissa paulisper sacerdotii mentione, de Apostolatu 
hic disserit.”. The foundation for the statement of 
both these in the exhortation is laid in the previous 
chapter. In the ensuing argument, they are properly 
treated separately. 

ὁμολογίας occurs thrice in the New Test. out of 
the Epistle to Hebrews, and thrice in it. In 2 Cor. 
9:13 we have, ἐπὶ τῇ ὑποταγῇ τῆς ὁμολογίας ὑμῶν 
εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλεον τοῦ Χριστοῦ, Engl. version, “ For 
your professed subjection to the Gospel of Christ.” 
1 Tim. 6:12, ὡμολόγησας τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν, 
“ Having professed a good profession;” and 1 Tim. 


6:18, Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ μαρτυρήσαντος ἐπὶ Iov- | 


τίου Πιλάτου τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν, “ Witnessed a 
good confession.” In Hebrews, it occurs in the verse 
under consideration, in 4: 14, and 10: 23; χρατῶμεν 
τῆς ὁμολογίας, “Let us hold fast our profession,” and 
κατέχωμεν τὴν ὁμολογίαν τῆς ἐλπίδος, “Let us hold 
fast the profession of our faith.” The verb ὁμολογῶ 
often occurs in the sense of confessing Christ (though 
sometimes applied to other things), as may be seen by 
consulting the common New Test. Lexicons. This 
sense of “confession” or “profession” of something 
evidently suits all the passages cited; and applying it 
here, directly and literally, we have about this mean- 
ing: ‘The Apostle and High-Priest whom we have 
professed.’ This is nearest the exact usage of the 
word in 4:14 below. Or else, if we suppose a 


—eE—eeeEeEEEEOeEeEEEEEeEeEeEEeEeE—e ν, 


HEBREWS, CHAP. III. v. 2. 117 


very natural metonymy, substituting for the profes- 
sion the thing professed, we have the meaning, ‘The 
Apostle and High-Priest of Christianity, or the new 
dispensation. 

We may therefore represent the Apostle’s mean- 
ing in this introductory verse as substantially this: 
“Such, holy brethren, being the character and func- 
tions of the Messiah (as in ch. 2), let us farther con- 
template Him; and since the proselyting boast of the 
Jews is in the dignity of Moses, the God-appointed 
apostle of their economy, and the venerable sanctity 
of the Aaronic priesthood, the officers of its sacrifices, 
let us especially consider Jesus Christ in the same 
aspects, as the Apostle and High-Priest of owr econ- 
omy; in the first character superior to Moses, and in 
the second, to the Aaronic family.” 

ΟΝ ὃς... τῷ xocyouvre. This must be rendered here, 
“To Him that appointed him” (Engl. version). A 
similar use of the verb may be found most clearly in 
Mark 3: 14, καὶ ἐποίησε δώδεκα, “ And he appointed 
twelve” (apostles), οι Compare also 1 Sam. 12: 6, 
ΤΌ ΤΣ AA Ww Fin? (m5), which the Septuagint ren- 
ders, “The Lord (is witness) 6 ποιήσας τὸν Mavony 
καὶ tov ‘Aagwy ;” Engl. version, “ Who advanced Mo- 
ses and Aaron,” i. e. to their offices. The correspond- 
ing word is used in the sense of appointing in all 
languages. Thus we say, one is “made” a judge, 
a general, &e. 

ὡς καὶ Μωῦὺσῆς ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ οἴχῳ αὐτοῦ. The ori- 
gin of this expression is to be found in Numb. 12: 4, 


118 HEBREWS, CHAP. III. Vv. 2. 


nin fox? oma7b2a Mt ay jo-Nk>. In this passage, as 
in our Epistle, the word “house” is used figuratively 
for the dispensation or economy of the Church of God 
committed to Moses, as in v. 6 below the new was 
committed to Christ. Calvin connects ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ οἴκῳ, 
not with Moses, but Christ. But to do this is to over- 
look the distinction of the Apostle in vv. 5, 6, where 
Christ’s “house” is most clearly set in antithesis to 
Moses’ house. Besides, the position of the words 
favours the ordinary construction. While the com- 
mission of the first dispensation to Moses is so spoken 
of, in v. 2, as to point the reader forward to the com- 
mission of the second to Christ, in v. 6, the figure is 
extended by anticipation as it were, in v. 4, in virtue 
of the force of the argument, to embrace “all things,” 
τὰ πάντα; for such is the true extent of Christ’s stew- 
ardship. Still, there is special reference to the dispen- 
sations, as will be seen below, on v. 4—To return: 
the word οἶκος is often used elsewhere in the Serip- 
tures, for the Church, without reference to different 
dispensations. 1 Tim. 3:15, ἐν οἴκῳ ϑεοῦ. .. ἥτες 
éorly ἐχκλησία ϑεοῦ ζῶντος. Thus, Eph. 2: 19, 20, 
22, believers are spoken of as οὐχεῖοε τοῦ ϑεοῦ, “and 
built on the foundation of the apostles,” &c. ἐποιίσο- 
δομηϑέντες. 2 Tim. 2:20, 21, the Church is com- 
pared to “a great house,” μεγάλῃ ofzxi~; and in 1 Pet. 
2: 5, to a spiritual building, οἶκος avsvucerixos. Cal- 
vin, losing sight of the foundation for the usage here, 
which is to be seen in Numb. 12: 7, and in the con- 
text, understands by o/x in our text, simply “the 


HEBREWS, CHAP. Ill. v. 3. 119 


Church of God.” Stuart renders it, “ family,” “ house- 
hold.” As to the sense, we may render it “ house” or 
“household,” for either is figurative. If we take the 
former, the latter must be included, as is clear from 
vy. 5, 6, for, of course, the little community inhabiting 
the house, and not the building, is the subject of its 
master’s instruction and government. For this sense 
of “household,” compare Luke 10: 5, εἰρήνη τῷ οἴκῳ 
τούτῳ (Engl. version, “ house”), and Acts 10:2, 11: 
$4,016.25; 1 Cor. 1:16, 2 Tim. 4:19. The word is 
used figuratively for the Church, in 1 Tim. ὃ: 15, 
1 Peter 4:17, Hebr. 10: 21, in addition to the pas- 
sages cited above. But in our context two houses are 
spoken of, Moses’ and Christ’s. God has had but one 
Church. Hence, and out of regard to Numb. 12: 4, 
we here clearly prefer to render the word as signifying 
the “two economies.” 

The comparison between the apostles of the two 
economies is quietly introduced in v. 2, in a form the 
least odious to Jewish prejudices, by conceding to 
Moses fidelity to his stewardship, while it is directly 
asserted for Christ also. But in the next point of com- 
parison, Christ rises infinitely superior. 

V. 3. γὰρ cannot be well referred to the proposi- 
tion immediately before it. It rather refers to the 
exhortation of v. 1, κατανοήσατε, κιτ. “He is 
worthy of consideration in comparison of his type, 
Moses, (γὰρ) for he is more glorious than Moses.” 
The sense of the passage extending from v. ὃ. to 
6 is well conceived by Calvin: “Admonet quanto 


120 HEBREWS, OHAP. Ill. VV. 8, 4. 


(Christus) sit (Mose) excellentior: idque duobus argu- 
mentis probat: Quia Moses sic preefuit Ecclesia, ut 
tamen pars ejus et membrum esset: Christus verd 
architectus est, toto sdificio superior. Ie, alios re- 
gendo, simul regebatur, quia. servus: hic tamen, quia 
Filius est, principatum obtinet.” 

It should be observed, on the rendering of this 
passage, that οἶκος primarily means “house,” “ dwell- 
ing ;” that the terms of the original (e. g. κατασκευώ- 
σας, ν. 4) are throughout selected with reference to this 
primary sense; and that, therefore, whether we under- 
stand the conception to be of a house, or a household, 
we should, as faithful translators, render by the former. 
In like manner our Engl. version uses “ house” for 
“household.” Acts 10:1, 2, “Cornelius ... feared 
God with all his house.” Acts 11: 14, “ words where- 
by thou and all thy house shall be saved.” 

Vv. 8, 4. From the context, κατασχενάσας may 
be most naturally taken in the sense of building, of 
course figuratively. In Hebr. 9:2 the same verb is 
used in a literal sense of constructing the tabernacle, 
in 11: 7 of constructing the ark, and in 1 Peter 3: 20 
of the same subject. In ν. 4 the idea of the verb is 
enlarged naturally, and the figure extended to the uni- 
verse; and here the act of constructing is less a figura- 
tive one than in v. 3. 

In these verses, as in the two following, the Apos 
tle is evidently setting forth the superiority of Christ 
to Moses. Here we have the first argument, or we 
would rather say, statement, to this effect. (For the 


HEBREWS, OHAP. I11. vv. 38, 4. 121 


apostles were inspired, and could teach authoritatively, 
although there might be nothing in Scriptures previ- 
ously given, which would evince to our view the truth 
of their teachings; and commentators sometimes give 
themselves causeless trouble, by leaving this out of 
view, and hunting for arguments where the apostles 
only meant to give authoritative assertions.) “He is 
more honourable than Moses, as the builder is than 
the house; for (γὰρ) every house is built by some 
one: but he who built all things, 1. 6. Christ, is‘God ; 
of course, infinitely above Moses.” It is here assumed 
by the Apostle, as is proved by the Old Test. Scrip- 
tures, cited in ch. 1, that Christ created all things ; 
and he virtually affirms that Christ and Moses were 
related as creator and creature. The comparison of 
v. 3 illustrates this idea, and it is logically developed 
inv. 4. The author does not here aim to prove at all 
that Christ made all things, or that He established 
both dispensations, or that He was God. All these 
are directly asserted or implied in what he says, and 
are designed to illustrate what he does aim to teach, 
viz. that Christ is more honourable than Moses, as the 
builder is than the house (vy. 3). The very mode of 
statement in v.2 (Mwiojs ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ οἴχῳ αὐτοῦ) 
had put Moses 7m the house, and of course under the 
κύρεος or son of it. And it was natural, in clearing 
up or expounding the statement of v. 3, to add that of 
v. 4: “ Every house is built by some one; the dispen- 
sation to which Moses belonged (in what capacity the 
author will show directly) had a χύρεος who estab- 


122 HEBREWS, OHAP. III. V. 5. 


lished it ; He, i. 6. Christ, who established all things,* 
the old and new economies as well, and all the other 
arrangements of the universe, is God.” If any thing 
is assumed, it is this postulate of what had already 
been shown in ch. 1, that “Christ is the framer and 
disposer of all things.” And if to any the argument 
seems flat, we would remind them that it was suited to 
the obtuseness which exalted Moses above Christ; not 
to say that it is virtually the one which is employed 
in ch. 1 to show Christ’s superiority to the angels. 
But this difference must be admitted, that there, as we 
have already intimated, the author really argues from 
Old Test. Scriptures, while here he rather seems author- 
itatively to teach. 

V. 5. χαὶ introduces the second argument. We 
find it thus used, in the. additive sense (“ again,” “in 
addition”), in ch. 1: 7 and 10, and 10: 38. 

ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ οἴκῳ. The preposition ἐν is manifestly 
antithetical to ἐπὶ in v. 6. Moses belonged to the 
house, though the subordinate ruler of it. 

αὐτοῦ. It is difficult here, as well as in v. 6 and 
v. 2, to settle the particular personal reference of this 
pronoun. The manuscripts vary greatly (as is com- 
mon in such cases) as to the breathing. According to 


* If any one should prefer to understand τὰ πάντα of the two dispen- 
sations impliedly referred to, we should have no contention with him, 
Instances are not wanting where the word πᾶς is used in a sense not uni- 
versal, but to be limited by the context; so as to mean “ the whole” of 
the matters in hand, See 1 Cor. 12: 6, Phil. 3: 7, 8, Col. 3: 8. 


HEBREWS, CHAP. III. v. 5. 123 


the stricter usage of the pronouns, the reflexive pro- 
noun αὑτοῦ would signify, im v. 5, Moses’ house, and 
in v. 6, Christ’s. The pronoun with the smooth ac- 
cent, αὐτοῦ, as it is in the text, would indicate, in v. 5, 
the house of some one else than Moses, and in v. 6, of 
some one else than Christ. But this usage is not 
authoritative; for, consulting Kiihner’s Gr. Gram. 
8802. 5, and Winer’s Id. New Test. $22. 5, the reader 
will discover that αὐτὸς is often used in place of the 
réflexive pronoun ἑαυτοῦ (contracted avrov); and 
always where the member of the sentence containing 
the pronoun is regarded as proceeding from the mind 
of the speaker or author, and not from that of the 
subject. So that even if we were certain that the 
Apostle, in his protograph, wrote αὐτοῦ (with the 
smooth breathing), we should still be at sea as to its 
reference. Nor will Numb. 12:7 enable us to decide, 
though God there says, “ /y house ;” since the author, 
inasmuch as he is not directly quoting, but only allud- 
ing to the passage, might still refer, by αὐτοῦ, to the 
immediate subjects, Mavois, Χριστός. The argument 
is not materially affected by either reading. We have 
above employed the one last indicated, as entirely ad- 
-missible, not as evident. 

ϑεράπων. Thus the Septuagint render 29, in 
Numb. 12: 7; and this is the word usually employed 
by them for Moses, when he is called mim Say, and 
for the ministers of Pharaoh, in Exod. 7: 10, 20, 8: 29, 
31, &e. The ϑερώπων is not δοῦλος, for he might be, 
and generally was, ἐλευϑερός. The word is in the 


194 HEBREWS, CHAP. IIL v. 6. 


Old Test. opposed to κύριος, βασιλεύς, as here to υἱός, 
who is also, in v. 6, κύρεος. Compare chs. 1, 2. The 
Engl. version here renders well by “servant,” 1. 6, 
minister, and not by “slave,” which is every where the 
proper rendering of δοῦλος. | 

εἰς μαρτύρεον τῶν λαληϑησομένων. ‘These words 
may be best understood as expressing the object of 
Moses’ being a ϑεράπων, 1. 6. to make known what 
God should declare to the people. Others, with less 
judgment, explain τῶν λαληϑησομένων of the future 
things of the second Riepaigiese | 

V.6. Xgcoros δέ, ὡς viog ἐπέ; #.1.). This clause 
is evidently opposed to ϑερώπων ἐν, of v. 5. In this 
light, the argument of these two verses is plain: Mo- 
ses, whatever his dignity and fidelity as an ἀπόστολος, 
was but a servant ¢ his house, a part himself of the 
subject body. Christ is Lord over his economy. (See 
Analysis. ) 

οὗ οἶκός ἐσμεν ἡμεῖς, only expresses, suitably to 
the prevailing figure, the sentiment that they, the 
author and his readers, had an interest in this gospel 
economy, if they held it fast unto the end. The car- 
rying out of the figure.in this manner is not unusual 
to the New Test. writers. Thus, Paul says to the 
Corinthians, 1 Cor. 3: 9, sod γεώργιον, ϑεοῦ οἰκοδο- 
μή ἔστε; and the idea is strikingly amplified in the 
succeeding verses. 1 Pet. 2:5, καὶ αὐτοὶ (ὑμεῖς) ὡς 
λίϑοι ζῶντες οἰκοδομεῖσϑε, οἶκος πνευματικός, κιτ.λ. 

παῤῥησίαν is from πας-ρῆσες, Meaning, most liter- 
ally, “free-spokenness,” and hence “boldness ;” and 


HEBREWS, CHAP. III. v. 6. 125 


hence again, “ confidence.” The word occurs thrice in 
our Epistle besides here. In 4:16 we have, 77ρος- 
ἐρχώμεϑα οὖν μετὰ παῤῥησίας ta ϑρόνῳ τῆς χάρει- 
τος, κ.τ.λ.) “ Let us come boldly.” In 10: 19, Ἔχοντες 
οὖν, ἀδελφοί, παῤῥησίαν εἰς τὴν εἰσοδον τῶν ἁγίων 
ἐν τῷ αἵματε Ἰησοῦ, κ.τ.λ.; and in 10: 8ὅ, Μὴ ἀπο- 
βάλητε οὖν τὴν παῤῥησίαν ὑμῶν, κιτ.. These in- 
stances sufficiently show that the word is used sub- 
stantially in the meaning of the Jeliever’s confidence, 
founded on his faith in Christ. | 
ἐλπέδος seems to depend both on παῤῥησίαν and 
καύχημα; and the meaning, “confidence and exulta- 
tion of hope,” is equivalent to “confident and exulting 
hope.” Or it may, without violence, be made to de- 
pend on καύχημα only, and the meaning would then 
be, “ Our confidence and exulting hope.” The three 
ideas of confidence, joy, and hope, are here intimately 
associated: of the several possible internal relation- 
ships between them, we cannot certainly determine 
which the Apostle designed. But the meaning 18 
obvious, and is little varied on either supposition. We 
now return to the conditional particle which intro- 
duces the phrase, ἐάνπερ, “If indeed we hold firm,” 
ἄς. Perseverance in faith and hope unto the end 
is the test of a true membership in the “house” of 
Christ. Compare v. 14 below, μέγοχος γὰρ γεγόνα- 
μὲν τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἐάνπερ THY ἀρχὴν τῆς ὑποστάσεως 
μέχρε τέλους βεβαίαν κατάσχωμεν; and more espe- 
cially, 1 John 2:19, “They went out from us,” &e. 


) \ >i Vue c ~ ᾽ν Ψ ΜῈ ~ 
“εἰ γάρ nouv ἐξ ἡμῶν, μεμενήκεισαν av ue ἡμῶν, 


126 HEBREWS, OHAP. III. Vv. 6. 


z.t.4, A future of continued perseverance in faith is 
the necessary test of our present interest in Christ. 
Notice that the primary tenses are used: οὗ οἶκος 


ἔσμεν, “Whose house we (now) are, provided we 
hold firm,” &¢.; μέτοχοι γὰρ γεγόναμεν, “We have 
become sharers, provided we hold fast unto the end,” 


&e. 


If this root of infallible future perseverance is 


not in us, then we are not now members of Christ. 
Such is the plain inference from the Apostle’s state- 
ments. It may be objected, if a future of perseverance 
is the evidence of a present interest in Christ, then the 
believer can never enjoy a present assurance of hope; 
for he cannot foreknow. The answer is, that his pres- 
ent assurance of hope is not founded on his foreknow- 

τ ledge of his own stability (if it were, it-would be an 
assurance of apostacy), but on his confidence in the 
faithful and omnipotent grace of God, covenanted to 
him. 


11 
12 


' \ r \ ~ eg éci er 

Aw, καϑὼς λέγεε τὸ πνεῦμα TO ayLoY, “ σημέρον, 
> ~ ~ 9 ~ > | εἶ ‘ 
ἐὰν τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ ἀκούσητε, μὴ σκληρύνητε TAS 
’ c ~ c Ὕ ~ ~ p 
καρδίας ὑμῶν, ὡς EV τῷ παραπεκρασμῷ, HATH 
- ἕω ὦ Δ, τὰν ἂν, δ. 29 ΄ 

τὴν ἡμέραν τοῦ πειρασμοῦ EV τῇ ἐρημῳ, OV ἕπει- 
Ud ~ > , ΟΝ Ν 

ρασών μὲ οἱ πατέρες ὑμῶν" ἐδοκέμασων με, καὶ 

Zz » DF μ », A ‘ 
εἶδον Ta ἔργα μου, τεσσαράκοντα ἔτη " OLO προς- 
- - > , ᾿ 4 ) 

ὠχϑισα τῇ γενεᾷ ἐχείνῃ, καὶ εἰπον" ast πλα- 
ν > : ἐν ; : 2 ; 
yavruc τῇ καρδίᾳ" αὐτοὶ δὲ οὐκ ἔγνωσαν τας 
” > Se ~ . 5 ee , 

ὁδούς μου" ὡς ὥμοσα ἕν τῇ ὀργῇ μου" εἰ εἰφελεύ- 
> ‘ e , vw. ΘΛ “ δ A 

σονται εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσίν μου βλέπετε, aOEA- 
> » ~ , ‘ 
got, μήποτε ἔσταε ἔν reve ὑμῶν καρδία πονηρὰ 
> ~ > ~ » \ Oo ~ ~ 2 

ἀπιστίας, ἐν τῷ ἀποστῆναε ἀπὸ ϑεοῦ ζῶντος 


HEBREWS, CHAP. III. v. 7. 127 


~ c ‘ ἢ c 7 
18 ἀλλὰ παρακαλεῖτε ἑαυτοὺς xa ἑκάστην ἡμέραν, 
γ τ , Ὁ ’ Ὰ 5 ~ 
ἄχρες οὗ τὸ σήμερον καλεῖταε, ἵνα μὴ σκληρυνϑῇ 
due ~ 4 ~ , 
τες ἐξ ὑμῶν ἀπάτῃ τῆς ἁμαρτίας. 


ν.1. With this verse the Apostle again passes 
from argument to exhortation. 420, “In view of 
which truths,” “Wherefore.” The exhortation is drawn, 
as usual, from the doctrine, “Since Christ is such, and. 
we partake of his benefits only by persevering, there- 
fore... (v. 12), see to it, brethren, lest there be in 
any of you an evil heart of unbelief,” &e. According 
to the view of one class of interpreters, among whom 
is Bloomfield, the Apostle adopts the exhortation of 
the Psalmist as his own (v. 8, μὴ σκληρύνητε), and 
dco then connects with this verb. But there is a 
strong objection to this: the Apostle introduces the 
passage with a formality unusual for him (καϑὼς 2é- 
yet TO πνεῦμα TO ἅγεον), as not his own words, but 
those of the Old Test. inspiration. He obviously sus- 
pends, by the zac, the sense which he was about to 
introduce by the ozo. And since v. 8 is as mucha 
part of the quotation as v. 7, it is a violent construc- 
tion to suppose that he makes its words δύ. own in 
any different sense from the whole quotation. It 
seems every way fair and natural to suppose that the 
suspension of sense made by the parenthesis (zadas 
λέγεε τὸ πνεῦμα, x.v.A.) continues during the whole 
quotation introduced by that parenthesis. The Apos- 
tle’s own exhortation, therefore, is resumed where the 
quotation ends, at v.12. He quotes for confirmation 
and admonition. 


128 HEBREWS, OHAP. III. v. 8. 


The words (v. 7-11) extracted, are evidently from 
Psalm 95: 7-11, whence they are taken, in the exact 
phrase of the Septuagint (Ps. 74: vv. 8-11), with 
a few trivial exceptions. The Holy Ghost, by the 
Psalmist, solemnly admonished that generation not to 
harden their hearts after the example of their fathers 
in the wilderness, who perished by their obduracy and 
unbelief. The Apostle now brings this admonition to 
apply again to God’s people of his day ; just as its ex- 
ample applies to every age of the Church, because 
God is the same, in his forbearance, mercy, justice, 
and jealousy, in his government of the Church in all 
ages, 

V.8. παραπιχρασμῷ is the Septuagint translation 
for mar. The word is not found in-classic Greek, 
We are, more than in usual cases, therefore, justified 
in passing wholly over into the Hebrew, to seek for 
the proper sense in which the Apostle understood it 
here. This sense is obviously that of “ strife,” “ con- 
tention” (verbal), not unaptly rendered in the Engl, 
version, “provocation.” The remark may -be made 
here, as also applicable to all the other quotations of 
our author from the Scriptures of the Old Test., that 
his manner of referring to them implies a tribute to 
the familiar knowledge of the word of God possessed 
by the Jews, which we would do well to emulate. 
He seems to assume that it is unnecessary to refer to 
chapter and verse; but wherever he introduces Old 
Test. words, with any indicative phrase, as “It is writ- 
ten,” his readers will recognise them without dispute, 


HEBREWS, CHAP. III. v. 9. 129 


and will be able to refer to them. It is worthy of 
remark that the same method prevails throughout 
the New Testament. 

- Some introduce a colon after éo7~«, the end of the 
Sth verse in the Hebrew. Others, with more reason, 
place it after of πατέρες ὑμῶν, corresponding with 
ponias in the Hebrew. “The trial in the wilderness” 
(τοῦ πειρασμοῦ ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ), 15 clearly defined by the 
succeeding clause (ov ἐπείρασάν μὲ) to mean, the trial 
made of God’s patience by the unbelief of Israel. 

V.9. κχαὶ εἶδον τὰ ἔργα μου. (“They tested 
me), although they saw my works.” The conjunction 
corresponds with the Hebr. ἘΔ (see Gesenius, Hebr. 
Lex. sub voce 84). From the simple additive sense 
“and,” grow other related senses; as an addition of a 
consequence, or inference. Thus, in v. 19 below, καὶ 
βλέπομεν, x.t.4., “And so, we see, they could not 
enter in because of unbelief.” In this place it signifies 
an addition of contrast and aggravation: “ And yet, 
they saw my works.” 

τεσσαράκοντα ἔτη are joined in the Hebr. with 
what follows (aps). (Note that the particle dco, im- 
mediately following, is not in the Septuagint, nor is 
there any word in the Hebrew corresponding to it.) 
And when the Apostle quotes the same clause again, 
im y. 17, he connects the forty years with the succeed- 
ing verb likewise (ΤΊσε δὲ προςώχϑεσε τεσσαράκοντα 
ἔτη ;). So they are connected in the Septuagint. The 


colon introduced in our Greek text after ἔτη, should 
therefore be removed. 


130 HEBREWS, OHAP. 111. vv. 10, 11. 


V. 10. πλανῶνται τῇ καρδίᾳ (Hebr. 333 Yh). 
“A people that turn away their hearts’ from God. 
This is not ill expressed by the Greek: they ‘rove, 
‘wander deviously’ in their heart. 

οὐκ ἔγνωσαν τὰς ὁδούς μου. They disliked his 
dealings—considered them not with that reverential 
approbation proper for God’s people. 

V.11. ὡς duoca. “So that I swore.” The parti- 
cle here has the sense of result and not of likeness, or 
comparison. See Winer’s Id. New Test. $57. 6, p. 359. 

εἰ siceAsvoovrae presents us with the abridged form 
of the Hebrew oath, the imprecation being omitted ; 
which gives to the condition of it the sense of a strong 
negation. “If they shall enter,” is then equivalent to 
“They shall not enter.” The full form of the oath 
may be seen in 1 Sam. 3:17, or 2 Sam. 3: 35, or 
2 Kings 6: 31, U8. ἼΣΩΝ FO AS) moe (Snipe 
vues. Gesenius, Hebr. Lex. may be consulted, art. 
ἘΝ, 6. 1. This usage of the text may be illustrated by 
Mark 8: 12, “μὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, εἰ δοϑήσεταε τῇ γενεᾷ 
ταύτῃ σημεῖον, and by the Latin form, “dloriar, δὲ 
habeo.” 

τὴν xacanavoly μουν. “'They shall not enter into 
my rest,” 1. 6. God’s. This is a higher and spiritual 
rest, of which the rest in Canaan was but a type, as 
will appear more fully in our examination of ch. 4. 
But by the language here, we learn that the curse 
which excluded the unbelieving Hebrews in the wil- 
derness from Canaan, also excluded them from God’s 
true rest. The dark and stubborn state of heart which 


HEBREWS, CHAP. III. v. 12. 181 


unfitted them for the lower, much more disqualified 
them for the higher rest. But yet, we would fain 
hope that while this sentence was passed upon their 
unbelief, and was inexorable as to the earthly penalty, 
the gate of repentance, which is ever open, was not 
shut against their souls. It is evident that the transac- 
tion referred to in all this quotation was that recorded 
in Ex. 1: 1. The same names, "02 and 729, recur. 
V.12. Here the Apostle, having strengthened his 
grounds by this solemn admonition, begins his own 
direct exhortation: 420... βλέπετε, ἀδελφοί, μήποτε 
ἔσταε ἔν TIVE ὑμῶν καρδία πονηρὰ ἀπιστίας. Winer 
(in his Idioms New Test. 890. 4, p. 157) renders these 
words, “a heart wicked (in respect to) unbelief,” or 
“of unbelief.” ‘Their meaning seems to be about this: 
“a wicked, viz. unbelieving heart.” The truth is most 
manifest in the words, that unbelief is a guilty state 
of the heart. “Man is responsible for his belief.” 
ϑεοῦ ζῶντος. God 15 often so called, in both Old 
and New Testaments, as in our Epistle, 9: 14, 10: 381, 
12: 22, to distinguish him from dead idols. In Acts 
14: 15, which contains the remonstrance of Paul and 
Barnabas against the superstition of the Lystrans, this 
opposition is distinctly expressed: “that ye should 
turn from these vanities (ματαίων) to serve the living 
God.” The phrase also doubtless contains a reference 
to God’s self-existence and eternity. Some suppose 
that in this place it refers specifically to Christ. Some 
countenance for such an application may be found in 
John 5: 21, 26, “For as the Father raiseth up the 


182 HEBREWS, OHAP. III. v. 18. 


dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quicken- 
eth whom he will.” And again, “For as the Father 
hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to 
have life in himself.” If this sense were adopted here, 
it would seem somewhat more apt to the Apostle’s ob- 
ject, which is, to prevent apostacy from Christianity. 
But if God commissioned Christ, and sanctioned the 
new dispensation, apostacy from it is desertion of God. 
Such an apostacy would be an exhibition of a wicked, 
unbelieving heart, similar to that exhibited by the 
ancient Israelites ; because God had given to believers 
of gospel times evidences of Christ’s mission more 
illustrious than those given by Moses. 

V.13. ἵνα μὴ σκληρυνϑῇ rig ἐξ ὑμῶν ἀπάτῃ τῆς 
ἁμαρτίας. This refers not merely to seductions from 
Judaism, but to sin working within and without. 
There is an evident allusion to the exhortation of the 
Psalmist, “‘'To-day if ye will hear his voice, harden not 
your hearts;” and the words of the Apostle are an 
unfolding of the sense of the Psalm. That from which 
God’s voice recalls us, is sin. If we refuse his voice, 
and indulge in the sin, its deceitfulness will harden 
our hearts. It is to the perverted understanding that 
the treacherousness of sin addresses itself, steeling the 
heart against the impressions of right, through the 
instrumentality of erroneous opinion. And thus mind 
and heart, when apostate from the fear of God, act 
and react to their mutual depravation. This passage 
is full of matter for the practical expounder of the 
Scriptures. 


ἨΒΒΕΒΕΒ, OMAP. 1111. τ. 14. 188 


he \ r ~ ~ tg 
14 (μέτοχοε γὰρ γεγόναμεν τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἐάνπερ 
- r la , , 
τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς ὑποστάσεως μέχρε τέλους βεβαίαν 
Ὕ ~ f G mes 
15 χαταάσχωμεν,) ἐν τῷ λέγεσθαι" “Gnusooy, ἐὰν 
- - - Lf \ r \ 
τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ ἀκούσητε, μὴ σκληρύνητε τὰς 
10 δίας ὑμῶν, ὡς EV τῷ πεκρασμῷ." Τίνες 
καρδίας ὑμῶν, ὡς EV τῷ παραπεχρασμῷ. ἐγνὲς 
fi , 2 2 } / 
yao ἀκούσαντες παρεπέχρανων; AAh ov πάντες 
de ? 5) \ Do a , 
17 of ἐξελϑόντες ἐξ Αἰγύπτου διὰ Μωῦύσέως ; Troe 
Γ r » 2 x ~ 
δὲ προςωχϑέσε τεσσαράχοντα ἔτη; Οὐχὶ τοῖς 
Το - » 2) ~ Ύ I! 
ἁμαρτήσασειν; ὧν τὰ κῶλα ἔπεσεν ὃν τῇ ἐρήμῳ. 
” / x f 
18 Tice δὲ ὥμωσε μὴ εἰφςελεύσεσθαε εἰς τὴν κατά- 
~ ΕΣ Γ Ἵ r 
19 παυσὸών αὑτοῦ, εἰ μὴ τοῖς ἀπειϑησασε; Καὶ βλέ- 
ca ) 3 4 Ἴ « ~ By 2 
πομεν, ὅτε οὐκ ἡδυνήϑησαν εἰφςελϑεῖν δὲ ἀπεστέαν. 


V.14. μέτοχοε γάρ, #.t.4. The reference of the 
conjunction γὰρ is in this place to the admonition of 
v. 12: “Guard against apostacy ; for perseverance in 
the Christian profession is the condition of our interest 
in Christ.” The proposition introduced by γὰρ is 
here evidently intended to support the exhortation, as 
in v. 6 the same truth was designed to prepare the 
way more effectually for it. The whole sentiment, in 
its connexion, is this: “ We are interested savingly 
in Christ, if we persevere in our first faith even to the 
end; otherwise, we are, of course, excluded from all 
saving interest. Let us, then, not be seduced from 
Christ ; for (γὰρ) He profits us nothing, we have no 
saving interest in Him, unless we hold to our faith.” 
Calvin well states the connexion of thought thus: 
‘Verum si fide possidetur (Christus), in ea perstan- 
dum est, ut nobis perpetua maneat possessio. Ergo 
hac lege se nobis fruendum dedit Christus, ut eadem, 


134 HEBREWS, OHAP. III. v. 15. 


qua in ejus participationem admissi sumus, fide tantum 
bonum conservemus usque ad mortem.’ 

μέτοχοι τοῦ Χριστοῦ means literally, “sharers of 
Christ.” It expresses such union with Christ as se- 
cures to us the benefits of His redemption. Believers 
are often said to be “in Christ.” Rom. 8:1, Οὐδὲν 
ἄρα νῦν κατάκρεμα τοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. 2 Cor. 5: 
17, εἴ τες ἐν Χριστῷ, καινὴ κτίσες. In John 17: 21, 22, 
believers are said to be one in Him, and He in them. 
There is here a metonymy of Christ for His benefits. 

τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς ὑποστάσεως. “The beginning of 
our confidence,” for “our first confidence.” The phrase 
may be compared with τὴν πρώτην πίστεν, in 1 Tim. 
5:12. We here give the meaning of “ confidence, 
well-founded trust,” to ὑπόστασις, as that which is 
our sustaining foundation (vgiornuc, to ~place under, 
sustain). This sense it has also in 2 Cor. 9: 4, καται- 
σχυνϑῶμεν ἡμεῖς ... ἐν τῇ Unooracse ταύτῃ, and, 
if the marginal rendering of our English version be 
adopted, in the well known passage, Heb. 11: 1, πέστες 
ἐλπεζομένων ὑπόστασις. Giving to it this sense of 
‘confidence’ in the text under discussion, wé find a 
parallel expression below in 10: 85, where the same 
grace is called παῤῥησίαν. 

V. 15. ἐν τῷ λέγεσθαι, σήμερον, #74. ἐν ἰδ 
often found with the infinitive as a dative, in a tempo- 
ral sense, “ while.” Thus, in Luke 2: 6, we read, ev 
τῷ εἶναε αὐτοὺς ἐκεῖ, “ whilst they were there.” The 
same construction may be found in Luke 5: 1, 17: 11, 
and Matt. 18:25. In Luke 24:51 it seems to be 


—_— 





HEBREWS; OHAP. IIl..v. 15. 135 


used in a temporal sense, looking somewhat towards 
the completion of the time and action expressed by 
the dependent verb: Kai ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ εὐλογεῖν 
αὐτὸν αὐτούς, διέστη ax αὐτῶν, καὶ ἀνεφέρετο εἷς 
τὸν οὐρανόν, “ When he blessed them,” &c. In Luke 
1: 21 the same construction is expressive not only of 
the time in which, but the ground for which, an 
action occurs: “ And the people waited for Zacharias, 
καὶ ἐθαύμαζον ἐν τῷ χρονίζειν αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ ναῷ." 
They wondered while he tarried, and they wondered 
én that he tarried, in the temple. So here, ἐν τῷ λέγε- 
otue may be rendered, “while it is said, or as it is 
said.” Bloomfield interposes a period or a colon at 
the end of v. 14, βεβαίαν xaracyouev* and he, as 
well as Stuart, Kuinoél, and others, limit the quotation 
to the following words, σήμερον, ἐὰν τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ 
ἀκούσητε, and understand the remainder, μὴ oxAnov- 
VATE τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν, ὡς ἐν TO παραπιχρασμῷ, tO 
be an exhortation of the author in the words of the 
Psalmist. An analogous instance of the curtailment of 
a longer passage previously quoted, into the mention 
of its initial words, is supposed to be found in Hebr. 
8:18, Ἐν τῷ héivyery καένήν, πεπαλαίωχε τὴν πρώτην. 
But this severance is certainly harsh; and it seems 
wholly unwarrantable to decide that all the words 
quoted, after a certain word, are adopted by the author 
in a sense different from that in which he adopts the 
previous words, when there is nothing in the passage 
itself to indicate such a “break.” If, with Theophy- 
lact, we could feel authorized to translate ἐν τῷ λέγε- 


136 HEBREWS, CHAP. III. v. 16. 


σϑαε as equivalent to κατὰ τὸ λεγόμενον, then the’ 
whole of the quotation might be taken as the accom- 
modated words of the Apostle, who availed himself of 
the Psalmist’s language to repeat the ground of his 
exhortation. Calvin remarks on the phrase, Ἐν τῷ 
λέγεσϑιαε, “perinde valet acsi dixisset: Quandoquidem 
loquendi finem nunquam Deus facit, non satis fuerit 
promptos animo fuisse amplexus ejus doctrinam, nisi 
eadem docilitate cras et perendie illi nos obsequentes 
prebeamus.” Bretschneider (in his Lexicon, sub voce, 2, 
which the reader may consult) adopts a connexion not 
unlike that of Calvin, referring the words ἐν τῷ λέγε- 
Gia to μέχρε τέλους INV. 14: “...if we hold our 
first confidence steadfast unto the end, whilst it is 
said” (i. 6. while the exhortation still repeats, as it will 
repeat to all, to the end of their course), “To-day if 
ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts,” &e. 
This seems to us, upon the whole, the best construe- 
tion, and most natural sense to place upon the passage. 

V.16. γὰρ connects what follows with the pre- 
ceding exhortation, as an additional ground or reason. 
For this purpose the attention of the reader is called 
to the mournful extent of the destruction in the wil- 
derness, and its cause. The pronoun is not the indefi- 
nite Tvvéc, but the interrogative Tives. So say Chry- 
gostom and the Syriac version. The clause then will 
be rendered, as an interrogation, “For who (how 
many), when they heard, provoked God?” The con- 
junction Ad’, then, is equivalent to the Latin imo, 
vero, “nay.” SoStuart construes and translates. But 


HEBREWS, OHAP. III. v. 16. 137 


if, like the English version, we read the first two 
clauses without interrogation, then ἀλλὰ will have its 
common adversative and corrective meaning of ‘ but, 
‘yet.’ “Some, when they heard provoked, yet, not 
all,” ἄς. But the sense is more animated, as well as 
more suitable to the context, and to the facts of the 
history, with the interrogative meaning, And even 
adopting this interrogative form, the common and 
proper adversative meaning may be retained in ὠλλά; 
for still there is at bottom an antithesis, corrective of 
an imagined erroneous answer to the question of the 
first clause, “ Who provoked? (a few only?) But was 
it not all that came out of Egypt?” A similar use of 
ἀλλὰ may be seen in Luke 17: 8, “ Which of you havy- 
ing aservant ploughing, or feeding cattle, will say unto 
him by and by, when he is come from the field, ‘Go 
and sit dewn to meat?’ ἀλλ᾽ οὐχὶ ἐρεῖ αὐτῷ ἑτοίμα- 
Gov ti δειπνήσω, and will not rather say, make ready 
that I may sup,” &c. See Winer’s Id. N. T. $57, Ὁ. 346. 

πάντες. This word we are not obliged to translate 
as absolutely universal. We may except Caleb and 
Joshua. Let the reader compare John 3: 26, πάντες 
ἔρχονταε πρὸς αὐτὸν (Ἰησοῦν). John 12: 82, ravrac 
ἑλχύσω πρὸς ἐμαυτόν. Matt. 2: ὃ, πᾶσα Ἱεροσόλυμα 
μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐταράχϑη. Matt. 8: ὅ, πᾶσα ἡ Ἰουδαία, 
καὶ πᾶσα ἡ περίχορος τοῦ ᾿Ιορδάνου (ἐβαπτίζοντο). 
In none of these places can universality be understood. 
This use of the word may be seen well illustrated by 
Hodge on Romans 5:18. Examples were also cited 
by us above, on ch. 2:9. The passage in Exod. 17: 7, 


138 HEBREWS, OHAP. III. v. 16. 


to which the 95th Psalm seems to refer, contains no 
statement that God then swore none of the murmurers 
should enter Canaan. ‘That terrible sentence is first 
recorded at a subsequent provocation, when the peo- 
ple at Kadesh-Barnea refused to go up and conquer 
their inheritance, in obedience to the divine command. 
See Numb. 14: 23. But the Holy Ghost, in the 95th 
Psalm, begins by referring to the first noted instance 
of their rebellions, and then points to the doom in 
which their course of provocations ended. The actual 
extent of this doom may be seen by referring to 
Numb. 14: 24, 80, 26: 65, 82: 11, 12, and Joshua 14: 
6-8. Caleb and Joshua are there alone excepted. 
And here we see how unnaturally feeble is the read- 
ing which would put the indefinite Ζενές, “some” 
(“for some, when they had heard, did provoke,” Engl. 
version), for the whole of a nation of severak millions 
except two individuals. Calvin, on v. 17, remarks as 
follows: “ Porro queeritur an Moses et Aaron ac similes 
in hoc numero comprehendantur. Respondeo ; Apos- 
tolum de universo magis corpore, quam de singulis 
membris loqui. Certum est, complures fuisse pios, qui 
vel communi impietate non fuerunt impliciti, vel mox 
resipuerunt. Mosis quidem semel tantum concussa fuit 
fides, idque ad momentum. Quare in verbis Apostoli 
est synecdoche, cujus satis frequens est usus, quoties de 
aliqua multitudine aut corpore populi habeter sermo.” 
We present this as, upon the whole, the obvious 
connexion of thought in this v.16. In the preceding 
context, the general idea is, “ Beware, brethren, of 


HEBREWS, CHAP. Ill. vv. 17, 18. 1389 


apostacy, in view of the dreadful doom of the ancient 
rebels in the wilderness. (And (v. 16) the extent of 
that doom makes this admonition more startling ;) for 
(γάρ), who were they, who, when they heard God, 
provoked him? nay, was it not all that came out of 
Egypt through the instrumentality of Moses? If un- 
belief and disobedience wrought so wide a ruin then, 
beware of them now.” 

Vv. 17, 18. In these two verses we have the two 
expressions, Οὐχὲ τοῖς ἁμαρτήσασε, and τοῖς ἀπεεϑή- 
Gaoz, used as parallel. The latter word is currently 
used in the New Test. in the sense of wnbelievers. Its 
primary sense, indeed, is “to be unpersuadable,” and 
hence “disobedient;” but hence it derives the sense 
of unbelief, which it doubtless bears here. Though 
aucornoaoe and ἀπεεϑήσασε are not synonymous, the 
one being general, and the other specific, the reason- 
ing implies that unbelief was the essence of all their 
sin. We have here another instance of the teaching 
of the Scriptures concerning the wickedness of unbe- 
hef. Compare ν. 12. 

κῶλα. Whose “limbs” fell in the desert. This is 
the translation given by the Septuagint for "38, “car- 
cass,” in Numb. 14: 29, 32; an instance of a common 
synecdoche. 

κατάπαυσεν αὑτοῦ. When we refer to the his- 
tory of this divine oath, for instance in Numb. 14: 23 
and Deut. 1: 35, we find mention made only of the 
promised land, as that from which Israel excluded 
himself by unbelief: “Surely they shall not see the 


140 HEBREWS, CHAP. III. Vv. 19. 


land which I sware unto their fathers.” “The Lord 
was wroth, and sware, saying, Surely there shall not 
one of these men of this evil generation see that good 
land, which I sware to give unto your fathers, save 
Caleb the son of Jephunneh.” But upon adding to 
these passages the inspired construction of them in Ps. 
95:11, and considering the view developed by the 
Apostle in ch. 4 below (to the Commentary on which 
the reader is referred), we gather that the heavenly as 
well as the earthly rest was included in the promise 
and in the curse. 

V. 19 contains the Apostle’s closing deduction from 
the narrative: Καὶ βλέπομεν, “ And so, we see, that, 
on account of their unbelief, they could not enter in.” 
Καὶ is, in almost all its usages, parallel-to the Hebr. ἢ, 
and in its primary sense is strictly copulative. But 
thence other senses arise, out of the nature of the con- 
nected clauses; hence, in this place, the idea of con- 
nected result, “ And so.” Consult Winer’s Id. New 
Test. $57. 1, 2. Analogous uses of the word may be 
seen in Acts 7: 48, Rom. 11: 35, Hebr. 12:9, and (if 
the reading were genuine) in 1 Cor. 5:13. In these 
places the logical dependence of the added clauses is 
easily seen. 


ΟΠΑ Τα LV 


ANALYSIS. 


(1—13.) 

Tue author exhorts his readers against like failure 
of the rest, v. 1, which he proves is promised to be- 
lievers of every age—a true spiritual rest, vv. 2-10; 
and then resumes the exhortation, vv. 11-13. More 
particularly : 

In view of the example of our fathers (ovv), we 
should fear lest we come short of the promised rest, 
v. 1; for (yee), the promise is to us as well as to 
them, though from want of faith they were not profit- 
ed, for (yao), believers do enter into rest (that is, God’s 
spiritual rest promised also to the fathers, who came 
short of it as they did of the type). This is manifest, 
1st, from the oath as expressed through David, Psalm 
95:11 (compared with Numb. 32:11, 12, Deut. 1: 
85), in which God declares that wnbelievers are ex- 
cluded, calls the rest from which he had excluded their 
unbelieving fathers Hs rest, and speaks for the in- 
struction of that (David’s) generation, to whom by im- 
plication the promise was still held forth, and to whom 
it was of course only a spiritual promise, since they 
were already in possession of the types, vv. 2, 3. 
These points, which are clear from the terms and cir- 
cumstances of the oath, are elucidated in the following 
verses. This oath we have (as announced through 


149 CHAP. IV.—ANALYSIS. 


David, still holding out God’s rest to believers), 
although His works (#c«/roc) were finished from the 
foundation of the world ; for (γάρ), we read concern- 
ing the seventh day (Gen. 2: 2,) that on it God rested 
from all his works; and then here, in the oath, we 
have God’s rest represented as forfeited by the fathers 
through unbelief, and still offered to believers through 
David. God’s rest, therefore, after the creation, was 
not one which had no relationship to men, but one 
into which God intended to admit believers, vy. 8-5. 
And thus we see the explanation of the exhortation 
by David. (Compare Numb, 32: 11, 12, Deut. 1: 35.) 

The leading truth of the passage is manifest, 2nd, 
from the following view. Hence (ovyv), seeing that 
(ἐπεὶ) some must enjoy God’s rest, and~ they to whom 
it was first offered, did not, through unbelief; again, a 
long time after, speaking by David to a generation 
then enjoying the type, He straightly charges them 
‘to-day to hear his voice, and not to harden their 
hearts’ as their fathers did, and thus exclude them- 
selves from it; which plainly supposes a spiritual rest 
still remaining for believers, vv. 6, 7. For if (Ez γὰρ) 
the earthly Canaan of which Joshua had instrumen- 
tally given them possession, had been all the rest that 
was promised, God would not, after that, have given 
an exhortation which implied a rest not yet possessed, 
and liable still to be forfeited, v. 8. There remains, 
therefore (ἄρα), for the people of God a rest, of which 
the earthly are but types, a true spiritual rest with 
God; for (γὰρ) he that hath entered upon it hath 


CHAP. IV.—ANALYSIS. 148 


ceased from his labours, as God did from his, vv. 9, 10. 
Hence (οὖν), he continues his exhortation to zealous 
endeavours te enter into this rest, lest (iva μὴ) we 
perish after the example of the unbelieving in the wil- 
derness ; for (γὰρ) the word of God by which we are 
to be tried is living, powerful truth, probing the very 
heart, searching out its sins, analyzing its thoughts, 
and motives, and desires; nor is there any thing 
concealed from the view of Him to whom we must 
account, vv. 11-13. 

As a@ summary. There are two steps in the 
argument. 1. From the oath, v. 3, confirmed and 
illustrated in vy. 3-5. 2. From the accompanying 
admonition, vv. 6, 7, confirmed in v. 8. Conclusion, 
v. 9, further illustrated, v.10. The particular inter- 
nal logical connexion of the thoughts must be sought 
in the particles. 


144 HEBREWS, CHAP. Iv. Vv. 1. 


COMMENTARY. , 
~ by ' , Ὕ 
1 φοβηθῶμεν οὖν, μήποτε, καταλειπομένης ἕπαγγε- 
> ~ ‘ é 5) ~ ~ 
λέας εἰφςελϑεῖν sig τὴν κατάπαυσεν «ὐτοῦ, δοκῇ res 
Ὕ ~ r , > , 
2 ἐξ ὑμῶν vorsonxeva. Kai yag ἔσμεν sunyyshe- 
, / , ~ A > 5] ’ Ε] / [ 
σμένοι, καϑάπερ xaxsivoe’ (ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ὠφέλησεν ὃ 
‘ ~ ) ~ > ‘ f ~ 
λόγος τῆς ἀκοῆς ἐκείνους, μὴ GUYHEXOAMEVOS TH 
, Ἢ > ΄ . ͵ \ 5 A 
3 πίστει τοῖς ἀκούσασεν ") siseoyousda yao εἰς τὴν 
[2 ὡς 
” , ~ > ~ = ] ᾿ς ΘΕ a P > ‘ 
ὥμοσα Ev τῇ ὀργῇ μου" εἰ ElGEhEVGOYTiLE εἰς THY 


Γ , A ” 
κατάπαυσεν OL πιστευσαντὲς, καϑὼς ELONHEY * 


κατάπαυσέν μου" καίτοι TOY ἔργων ἀπὸ κατα- 
4 βολῆς κόσμου γενηθϑέντων " εἴρηκε yao ποὺ περὲ 
τῆς ἑβδόμης οὕτω" “καὶ κατέπαυσεν ὃ ϑεὸς ἐν 
τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ἑβδόμῃ ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν ἔργων αὖ- 


- , (i: Γ ΄ 
τοῦ" καὶ ἕν τούτῳ παλεν" “sé εἰξελεύσονταε εἰς 


Or 


7 XN 


6 τὴν κατάπαυσίν μου" ἐπεὶ οὖν ἀπολείπεταε τε- 
vac εἰςελϑεῖν εἰς αὐτήν, καὶ οἱ πρότερον εὐαγγελε- 

T σϑέντες οὐκ εἰςῆλϑον δὲ ἀπείϑειων" πάώλεν tive 
c ly Se Hee 2a ” > ‘Nj ἢ \ 
ὁρίζεε ἡμέραν, “ σήμερον," ἐν Aavid λέγων μετὰ 
τοσοῦτον χρόνον (καϑϑὼς προείρηται) “ σήμερον, 
ἐὰν τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ ἀκούσητε, μὴ σκληρύνητε 

8 τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν. Εἰ γὰρ αὐτοὺς Ἰησοῦς κατέ- 
παυσεν" οὐκ av περὶ ἄλλης ἐλάλεε μετὰ ταῦτα 

9 ἡμέρας" ἄρα ἀπολείπεταε σαββατισμὸς τῷ λαῷ 

10 τοῦ Yeov. Ὁ γὰρ εἰφςελϑὼν εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσεν 
αὐτοῦ, καὶ αὐτὸς κατέπαυσεν ἀπὸ τῶν ἔργων αὖ- 
τοῦ. ὥςπερ ὠπὸ τῶν ἰδίων ὁ HsOs. 


Vil. Φοβηϑῶμεν. On this word Calvin re- 
marks: “ Hic nobis commendatur timor, non qui fidei 
certitudinem excutiat, sed tantam incutiat sollicitudi- 


HEBREWS, CHAP. Iv. Vv. 1. 145 


nem ne securi torpeamus.” It is ever the teaching of 
the Scriptures, that while we exercise an implicit and 
triumphing confidence in the fidelity of God, we should 
exercise a jealous watch over the treachery of our own 
hearts. These ideas are here also by implication: 
“The promise abides (firm),” καταλειπομένης ἐπαγγε- 
dias; 1t is we who may “seem to come short.” 

οὖν. The illation expressed by this particle, as 
was stated in the Analysis, is from the example of 
their fathers’ unbelief, ch. 3:19, οὐκ ἠδυνηϑησαν 
sicehidsiv δὲ antoriav. Calvin remarks: “ Illativa 
particula significat aliorum lJapsu nos ad humilitatem 
et vigilantiam erudiri: quemadmodum et Paulus loqui- 
tur Rom. 11: 20, ‘Isti per mcredulitatem corruerunt: 
tu ergo noli superbire, sed time.’ ” 

καταλειπομένης. Some translate this participle, 
“neelected,” which is nearly the sense of Calvin, who 
renders it by ‘derelicta” The sense of the verse would 
then be, “ Let us therefore fear lest any of you seem 
to come short, because the promise of entering into 
his rest 15 neglected.” It is allowable to attach such a 
meaning to a participial construction; but the whole 
following context requires for zaradectouévns the 
other sense, “being left,” or “remaining” to us. In- 
deed, vv. 2, 6, 7, 9, below, assert distinctly such a re- 
maining or abiding of the promise, and make it the 
leading idea. The author would imply that the 
earthly Canaan was not all the promised rest. 

δοκῇ some represent as pleonastic; and they cite, 
in illustration, Mark 10: 42, ὅτε of δοκοῦντες ἄρχειν 

10 


146 HEBREWS, OHAP. Iv. v. 1. 


τῶν ἐθνῶν κατακυρειύουσεν αὐτῶν; Luke 22: 24, 
Ἐγένετο δὲ καὶ φιλονεικία ἐν αὐτοῖς, τό, τίς αὐτῶν 
δοκεῖ sivac μείζων; 1 Cor. 11: 16, Εἰ δέ reg δοκεῖ 
φελόνεικος εἶναι. But Winer (in his Id. New Test. 
Append. $67. 4. ο. p. 451), rightly repudiates the idea 
of the regular pleonastic use of any class of verbs, and 
shows that, in all the supposed cases, there is a real 
addition to the accuracy and fulness of the sense, which 
we may see if we look with sufficient care. Thus, in 
the passage first cited, the meaning is, ‘ Those who are 
regarded, or admitted to be masters of the gentiles, 
exercise lordship,” &c. In the second, “There was 
dispute which of them is acknowledged to be great- 
est.” In the third, “If any person has the reputation 
of being disputatious,” &e. Most commentators say 
that δοκῇ is used here, in a sense adopted in some 
passages by Robinson (in his Lexicon New Test. sud 
voce, Ὁ), to soften the assertion, in conformity with the 
urbanity of the Greek manner. They refer for illus- 
tration to 1 Cor. 7: 40, δοκῶ δὲ χαγὼ πνεῦμεω ϑεοῦ 
ἔχειν. But it seems to us more proper to take it as 
expressing a constituent part of the Apostle’s idea, 
‘lest any of you be judged to have come short, i. 6. in 
the verdict of God. Compare, for instance, the ques- 
tion of Christ to the lawyer, at the close of the parable 
of the wounded man and Samaritan: Τίς οὖν τούτων 
τῶν τρεῶν δοκεῖ Got πλησίον γεγονέναε TOU ἐμπεσον- 
τος εἰς τοὺς λῃστάς; Here the sense is obviously that 
of a deliberate judgment: “Which of these three do 
you conclude was a neighbour,” &e.? Luke 10: 36. 


i, 


HEBREWS, CHAP. IV. V. 2. 147 


ὑστερηκέναε is translated by Bretschneider and 
Wahl, “to have come too late;” with reference to σή- 
μερον of the previous exhortation. But the word is 
found with this sense nowhere else in the New Test. 
It is better to give it its customary tropical signification, 
“to have come short,” “to have failed.” We can hardly 
believe that the sense is not substantially the same 
with that of iva μὴ rig πέσῃ; in y. 11, where the same 
admonition is repeated. The verb ὑστερέω occurs in 
our Epistle in 11: 87, “the saints wandered about in 
sheepskins,” ὅσο. ... ὑστερούμενοι, ϑλεβόμενοι, κα- 
κουχούμενοε, “ destitute,” &e.; and in 12: 15, ἐπεσκο- 
MOUVTES μή TLS ὑστερῶν ἀπὸ τῆς yaoeros τοῦ ϑεοῦ, 
“looking diligently, lest there be any one who comes 
short of the grace of God.” In the former place the 
meaning is, “ to be behindhand,” in the sense of “ lack- 
ing;” and in the latter, “to come short of.” In the 
text it is, very obviously, to have come short (scil. of 
the offered rest). 

V.2. yao here evidently refers to the proposition 
implied in καταλειπομένης ἐπαγγελίας, and presents 
the ground of confirmation for that assertion. And 
here we find additional evidence for the correctness of 
the meaning which we gave to these words, on v. 1; 
for if we rendered them “because the promise was 
neglected,” the connexion of the propositions would 
by no means be so lucid and natural. 

εὐηγγελεσ μένοι is here used in its general and also 
classical sense, of “having good tidings preached,” 
though there is doubtless an allusion to the gospel. 


148 HEBREWS, CHAP. IV. V. 2. 


Theologically considered, every promise comes through 
Christ ; and especially this one of a share in the spirit- 
ual rest of God. In Matt. 11: 5, and the parallel pas- 
sage in Luke 7: 22, we read, πεωχοὲ εὐαγγελέζονταε, 
“The poor have the gospel preached to them.” In 
the active voice, it is construed with the dative or ac- 
cusative of the persons who are the objects of the 
good news. See, for instance, Rev. 14:6. In Rev. 
10: 7 the various readings give both the dative and 
accusative. The meaning of the sentence is now obvi- 
ous: “God’s gracious promise of a spiritual rest is 
extended to believers now, as well as to them” (be- 
lievers of Moses’ and David’s time). 

6 λόγος τῆς ἀκοῆς may be best translated, “the 
word heard.” The genitive often serves as the quali- 
fying or defining adjunct. This was seen in the expo- 
sition offered, on 3:1 above, of the words ὠρχεερέα 
τῆς ὁμολογίας ἡμῶν. 

συγκεκρα μένος presents a various réading. Some, 
as Vater, prefer ovyzexoauévous, in the accus. plural, 
and there is some Ms. authority for its support. It 
must then be construed with ἐκείνους ; and the words 
τοῖς ἀκούσασεν must be taken in the sense of ὑπαχού- 
cao, which they are asserted sometimes to bear. 
The sense of the sentence would then be, “ But the 
word heard did not profit them, inasmuch as they 
were not mingled (associated) by faith with the obe- 
dient.” The accus. plural is certainly the more diffi- 
cult reading, and has therefore the support of that 
canon of the critics which enacts, that, when we are 


i τα τοι 


HEBREWS, OHAP. Iv. v. ὃ. 149 


compelled to choose between two readings, we must 
conclude that the one which is more plausible and nat- 
ural was invented or introduced by transcribers. But, 
by taking the reading of the Textus Receptus, the 
nominative, the sense is better and more natural. An 
analogous use of the verb may be found in Isaiah 19: 
14, which is rendered by the Septuagint, χύρεος yao 
ἐχέρασεν αὐτοῖς πνεῦμα πλανήσεως. Calvin renders 
our text thus: “Non cum fide conjunctus in iis qui 
audierant ;” a rendering which we adopt. 

V. 8. The author now proceeds to offer the 
ground of his last assertion: “Unbelief prevented 
the offer of God’s rest from profiting them ; for (γάρ), 
it is we who believed that enter into the rest.” And 
this assertion, again, is plainly implied in the language 
of God. 

καϑὼς εἴρηκεν, “ According as He (God) said,” 
&e, Calvin correctly apprehends the nature of this 
inferential argument: “ Argumentum est a contrariis. 
Sola incredulitas arcet; ergo fide patet ingressus.” 
The oath excluding unbelievers implies the free ad- 
mission of believers. The circumstances and terms of 
the oath, indeed, prove all that is contained in the 
proposition : ‘ A spiritual rest remains to believers of all 
ages.’ ‘The rest is called, for instance, God’s rest. The 
offer of it is renewed to believers of David’s day, who 
were already in possession of the earthly rest. It was 
that spiritual rest, "τὴν xaraxavow, the rest, into 
which God entered after the six days’ work of crea- 
tion, and which he offered first to the fathers, then to 


160 HEBREWS, OHAP. Iv. Vv. 3. 


believers of a later day, and, consequently, to believ- 
ers of every age. But the true nature of the Apostle’s 
point is determined by v. 9; for there he states it ex- 
plicitly in the form of a conclusion, at the end of this 
branch of his discussion: “There remaineth therefore 
a rest to the people of God.” This therefore is what 
he purposes to argue. 

καίτοι is translated by Stuart, Bloomfield, Kuinoél, 
and others, ‘nempe,’ ‘to wit;’ and this meaning would 
seein possible from a consideration of the elements of 
the word, though the examples given by Stuart after 
the authority of Hoogeveen do not prove it. The 
sense derived by such a translation would also be 
easier. The word occurs only here in the New Test. ; 
but with ye annexed (καέτοιγε), which only increases 
its force, it occurs in John 4: 2, Acts 14: 17, and Acts 
17: 27, and in all of the three places it manifestly has 
the sense of “although,” “though in fact.” This is un- 
doubtedly its common signification; to which we ad- 
here in the passage before us. For, according to the 
rareness of a given sense is the strength of the improb- 
ability that the writer has departed from the common 
one, unless the context manifestly compels us to sup- 
pose such a departure. Such is not the context here. 
καίτοε limits, or qualifies by a concession, the forego- 
ing sentiment, καϑὼς εἰρηκεν, x.r.A. (which is the 
force of the word in the other examples cited), and is 
here designed to call attention to a fact which makes 
the proof contained in the oath, for the spiritual and 
perpetual nature of the rest, more manifest. Calvin 


HEBREWS, CHAP. Iv. vv. 4, 5. 151 


remarks thus on the sentence: “ Zametst operibus, &e. 
Ut definiat qualis sit nostra requies, revocat nos ad id 
quod refert Moses, Deum statim a creatione mundi 
requievisse ab operibus suis.” The Apostle’s drift is 
this: to direct our close attention to the fact that God 
uses in his oath the very significant language, “if they 
shall enter into my rest.” And the significance of the 
words appears the more in this, that God thus speaks 
of believers sharing His rest, although (καίτοι) His 
was a rest from works finished from the foundation of 
the world. Of course, then, it was a rest different 
from that of Canaan, enjoyed by God before Canaan 
was ever selected and promised to the patriarchs as 
the holy land, and therefore still held out to believers 
after Canaan was possessed, as well as to the fathers 
journeying to Canaan. A (spiritual) rest remains 
therefore for believers. 

Vv. 4, ὅ. εἰρηχε yao nov περὶ τῆς ἑβδόμης, 4.7.2. 
These verses are designed to illustrate and confirm 
what was just stated: “ And this is so; that God did 
rest on the seventh day, and offers this rest long after 
to believers, impliedly, in the oath excluding unbe- 
fevers.” Calvin thus explains: “Hoe probat quia 
Deus, qui requievisse dicitur, longo post tempore in- 
eredulis requiem suam negat, quod frustra faceret, nisi 
exemplo suo fideles vellet quiescere. Ideo dicit, rel- 
quum fieri ut quidam ingrediantur. Nam si non 
intrare poena est incredulitatis, ut jam dictum est, cre- 
dentibus ingressus patet.” The comparison of the two 
quotations, which the Apostle wishes his readers to 


152 HEBREWS, CHAP. Iv. v. 6. 


view side by side, evinces this fact, that God’s rest 
(concerning which the implied offer is made through 
David to believers), is the same with the rest of the 
seventh day, which immediately succeeded creation ; 
and from this fact it is plain that the rest offered to 
believers is like that which God enjoyed—perpetual 
and spiritual. 

V. ὁ. ἐπεὲ οὖν makes an illation from what goes 
before (ov), together with what is now to be added 
(ἐπεί) ; this addition itself being generally involved in 
what preceded. <A similar arrangement of proposi- 
tions and use of particles may be seen in 2: 14 above, 
where also the apodosis is first in the sentence. The 
illation here is, πάλεν τενὰ ὁρίζεε ἡμέρων, 2.1.4. The 
ellipsis here made by Stuart seems to us very harsh, 
making the illation an implied one; viz. “Since there- 
fore it remains, &c....1t follows that a rest remains 
for believers.” It would be hard to conceive how a 
writer could seem to express his own illation more 


certainly than the Apostle does here; and if the sup- 


posed exigencies of the sense and context authorize us 
here to understand an ellipsis, where there is nothing 
in the arrangement of the words to indicate it, we 
do not see where an interpreter may not intrude an 
ellipsis. 

ἀπολείπεται, #.t.4. “It remains that some enter 
into it:” because the oath making unbelief the ground 
of exclusion, revealed his will that some should enjoy 
his rest. The reasoning is well unfolded by Calvyin’s 
exposition of vv. 4, 5, already cited. 


—— τ “- 


HEBREWS, CHAP. Iv. vv. 7, 8. 153 


V.%. πάλεν τενὰ δρέζεε ἡμέραν. Again He him- 
iteth a certain day, i. 6. in the exhortation addressed. to 
believers through David, when he said, “ 70-day if ye 
will hear his voice,” &c. The Apostle, by this partic- 
ularity, directs attention to the strictness of the divine 
admonition, which showed that God’s mercies might 
not be forever abused, and his promises rejected with 
impunity. It was also designed to prepare the way 
for the explanatory argument in v. 8, οὐκ ἂν περὲ 
ἄλλης ἐλάλει μετὰ ταῦτα ἡμέρας. 

We are now prepared to understand the full scope 
and meaning of vv. 6,7. It having been shown, in 
vv. 3-5, that believers are admitted into God’s spirit- 
ual rest, the design of these verses is, by means of the 
exhortation which accompanies the oath, still further 
to confirm what had been argued from the oath itself; 
that there was a spiritual rest for believers in every 
age. This appears from v. 8, where the deduction is 
strengthened, and further grounded. Thus Calvin: 
“Si nobis nihil promitteretur, an locum haberet 
haec admonitio? ‘videte ne vobis idem quod patribus 
contingat.’ ” 

V. 8. γάρ, as has been already indicated, here in- 
troduces what strengthens and illustrates the argument 
in vv. 6, 7. That argument is, “Since some must en- 
ter God’s rest, and those to whom the offer was first 
made did not, a long time after we find Him by David | 

offering it to others; a spiritual rest, therefore, and 
not the earthly Canaan: for (γάρ), if Joshua had 
given them (the Israelites first evangelized) the rest, 


154 HEBREWS, OHAP. IV. Vv. 9. 


God would not have spoken concerning another day 
after these transactions.” If the rest promised had 
been Canaan and nothing more, then, under Joshua 
the promise would have been fulfilled, and the whole 
transaction would have been a completed one; but in- 
asmuch as the Holy Ghost speaks of the promise as 
still open, and the transaction still suspended, to the 
believers of a later day, there is something more than 
Canaan implied in it. The rest of Canaan was not in- 
deed excluded; as Calvin well remarks, “ Non vult 
negare quin per requiem David terram Canaan intelli- 
gat, in quem Joshua populum induxit; sed hane fuisse 
ultimam requiem negat, ad quam aspirant fideles, quae 
illius etiam saeculi fidelibus nobiscum fuit communis.” 
The translation we have given above is in strict accord- 
ance with the usage for past tenses of the indicative in 
conditional sentences. The ἄλλης ἡμέρας is obviously 
the σήμερον of David. 

V.9. σαββατισμός. This word only occurs here 
in the New Test., and the only instance of its use in 
classic Greek which has been noticed, is in- Plutarch 
de Super. V.c. 3. It evidently means here “a sabba- 
tizing,” a “keeping of rest or sabbath.” Perhaps, as 
Stuart suggests, the word was coined by the author, 
for this place, from the Hebrew word nav, with a 
Greek termination. It contains an evident allusion to 
God’s rest, Gen. 2: 2, to a participation in which the 
Apostle’s whole argument proves that the faithful 
are invited. This reference to God’s rest is distinetly 
avowed in v. 10: “ He that is entered into his rest, he 


oreo 


HEBREWS, OHAP. Iv. v. 10. 154 


also hath ceased from his own works, as God from 
his ;” and alluded to in vv. 8-5. V. 9 obviously con- 
cludes the argument, and states its result. But the 
conclusion, after it is drawn, yet receives in v. 10 one 
more touch from the author’s hand, in the form of an 
additional confirmation and illustration. 

V. 10. γὰρ introduces this confirmation: ‘ He 
who hath entered into His (God’s) rest, hath ceased 
from his own works, as God also ceased from His,’ 
when, at the end of the six days’ creation, he reposed 
in divine and holy complacency, in the contemplation 
of the perfect world which he had built. The “ works” 
from which the glorified believer rests, are those la- 
bours and sufferings which make up the toils of his 
militant state; including, doubtless, the great labour 
of self-denial, or mortification of self, and self-righteous- 
ness, but not limited to it, as Calvin indicates: for 
such a sense would suit much better to a description 
of the believer’s regeneration, than to his glorification. 
When he embraces Christ, then he ceases from the 
labour of self-righteousness. There is peculiar appro- 
priateness in the verse, as we have explained it, to 
the persecuted condition of the Hebrew Christians. 
Doubtless the prospect of such a repose would be most 
soothing to the true Christian of that day, oppressed 
with constant dangers and exertions in the mainte- 
nance of a good confession. The believer’s rest is 
‘God’s rest, in that it is like God’s. Glorious as is the 
exaltation, in comparison with the believer’s person 
and deserts, he need not fear to embrace and triumph 


é 


———— ΓΙ τΡυυΥΥΕἘΥΒΓΡΕῦ͵͵ὺ ΓΙτυτυῖ υὑτετασσστσσπαπταοστσσστατπΠᾳ«ΦΠΦἔᾳρο΄-τ πππΠ.-ππ-ππ π΄ 


156 HEBREWS, CHAP. Iv. v. 10. 


in its vastness. In like manner he is said to share the 
peace of God (Phil. 4: 7), or of Christ (John 14: 2%, 
“My peace I give unto you”). 

Some readers may perhaps feel that they need the 
solution of one more question, in order to a satisfae- 
tory apprehension of the Apostle’s scope in this dis- 
cussion. Why does he here so labour a point which 
all Hebrews, except Sadducees, might be supposed to 
admit most fully and unhesitatingly? What is the 
relevancy of so laborious a discussion of this point, to 
the great object of his Epistle, which was to prevent 
apostacy from Christianity to Judaism? The answer 
is to be found in the peculiar and exclusive construc- 
tion which the Jew put upon God’s national covenant 
with Israel. The more scriptural and intelligent Jew, 
the Pharisee, for instance, by no means limited the 
privileges of his nation to temporal things. He ex- 
pected a future state of spiritual blessedness and im- 
mortality in heaven: but he tied the type, which was 
Canaan, too strictly to the antitype, heaven. He 
taught that the only way to enter the spiritual cove- 
nant, was to become a member of the national cove- 
nant; that none but the Jews, heirs of the earthly 
Canaan, were to share the heavenly; and therefore 
the only path to salvation was to become a proselyte 
to Judaism. Against this exclusive view, the Apos- 
tle’s discussion seems tacitly directed: “ We which 
have believed do enter into rest” (v. 8), not we who 
are Jews. It is unbelief which excludes from the 
spiritual rest (3:19), not uncireumcision. A whole 


HEBREWS, CHAP. Iv. v. 11. 157 


generation of circumcised people failed of it, because 
of the single obstacle of unbelief. Another whole 
generation of circumcised people (in David’s reign), 
who were in the actual possession of the earthly rest, 
and whose membership in the national covenant was 
most prosperous and indisputable, are addressed as 
being in danger of coming short of the spiritual rest, 
through similar unbelief. It is to the people of God, 
therefore, that the divine sabbatism remains (v. 9), 
not to Jews; for the Apostle had long and clearly 
taught that all are not Israel who are of Israel; and 
that they who have Abraham’s faith, though uncir- 
cumcised, are the seed of Abraham. 


11 Σπουδάσωμεν οὖν εἰςελϑεῖν εἰς ἐχείνην τὴν κατέ- 
παυσεν, ἵνα μὴ ὃν τῷ αὐτῷ τις ὑποδείγματε πέσῃ 

12 τῆς ἀπειϑείας. Ζῶν γὰρ 6 λόγος τοῦ ϑεοῦ, καὶ 
ἐνεργής, καὶ τομώτερος ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν μάχαεραν δί- 
στόμιον, καὶ δεϊκνούμεγος ἄχρε μερισμοῦ ψυχῆς 
[τε] καὶ πνεύματος, ἁρμῶν τὲ καὶ μυελῶν, καὶ 

13 HOLT LOS ἐνϑυμήσεων καὶ ἐννοεῶν καρδίας " καὶ 
οὐκ ἔστε κτίσες ἀφανὴς ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ, πάντα δὲ 
γυμνὰ καὶ τετραχηλεσμένα τοῖς ὀφϑαλμοῖς αὐ- 
τοῦ, πρὸς ὃν ἡμεῖν ὃ λόγος. 


V. 11. Σπουδάσωμεν οὖν, κιτ.ιΔ. The exhorta- 
tion, as usual, is logically resumed: “Since there is 
such a prize before us, and that prize may be forfeited 
by unbelief, let us labour to enter in.” Both hope 
and fear are enlisted. 


158 HEBREWS, OHAP. Iv. v. 12. 


iva un... πέσῃ, “Lest any fall,” in the sense of 
“perish.” Thus, in Rom. 11: 11, we read the follow- 
ing question: My ἔπταισαν iva πέσωσε; “ Have they 
stumbled that they should fall?” where the sense is, 
obviously, a final fall—a perdition. Calvin, referring 
to the words τῷ αὐτῷ ὑποδείγματε, says, ‘Ergo, ca- 
dere pro perire accipitur, vel, ut clarius dicam, non pro 
peccato sed pro peena.’ 

ἀπεεϑείας is obviously dependent on ὑποδείγματε: 
“Lest any one perish by the same pattern of unbelief,” 
or, “perish by unbelief of the same pattern.” The 
separation of the genitive from its governing word, by 
an interposed word or phrase, is by no means unusual 
in the New Test. Examples exactly similar to this 
may be seen in Phil. 2:10, 1 Tim. 8:6, Hebr. 8: 5. 

V.12. ὃ λόγος τοῦ ϑεοῦ is here understood, by 
most of the recent commentators, of only the minatory 
portions of God’s word. But there is, to say the least, 
no necessity for such limitation. The word of God 
promising and threatening (as in the preceding con- 
text), the law and gospel, may well be thus described, 
and be held up én terrorem to apostatizers, or to guard 
against apostacy. God’s word, the rule of our life and 
future trial, may not be contemned. It brings every 
thing into judgment, and in that day promises no 
less than threats will aggravate the condemnation of - 
unbelievers. 

V. 12. Ζῶν γὰρ ὁ λόγος. This attribute is 
ascribed to ἐλπέδα, 1 Pet. 1: 38; it is ascribed to ϑυ- 
σέων, Rom. 12: 1, and to λέϑον, 1 Pet. 2: 4. In these 


HEBREWS, CHAP. Iv. v. 12. 159 


places, “living” must be understood from the subject 
and context. Peter, by a “living hope,” evidently 
means an enduring hope, one that does not pass away. 
In the other two places, the participle has its proper 
sense, “possessing animate, intelligent life.” In John 
6:51 we have ἄρτος 6 ζῶν, in the sense of “ life-giving 
bread.” In 1 Pet. 1: 28, believers are “born of an 
incorruptible seed, dca λόγου ζῶντος ϑεοῦ καὶ μένον- 
toc,” where, if we construe ζῶντος with λόγου, after 
the example of our Engl. version, it will have the 
sense of abiding, or “ enduring word,” that which does 
not cease its efficacy. This is probably the sense in 
our text: “For the word of God is enduring, and 
effective; and trenchant above every double-mouthed 
sword (rouwregoc). The word of God is often com- 
pared to a sword, as in Eph. 6: 17, τὴν μάχαιραν τοῦ 
πνεύματος, ὃ ἔστε ῥῆμα ϑεοῦ. 

ινυχῆς καὶ πνεύματος. The distinction made 
by these two words is not to be pressed. Compare 
1 Thess. 5: 28, “I pray God your whole spirit and 
soul and body be preserved,” &c. The words are 
obviously used, in accordance with the usual classifi- 
cation of the day, to express the whole man. Here 
they seem related to each other more as anima and 
animus. The Pythagorean and Platonic philosophy 
distinguished between the animal and the rational 
soul, the wuy7 and the νοῦς, with which latter the 
πνεῦμα IS by many supposed to be the same. The 
former embraced the senses, appetites, desires, &c., the 
latter, the higher and intellectual faculties which dis- 


160 HEBREWS, CHAP. Ivy. Vv. 12. 


tinguish man from the brutes. The Scripture philo- 
sophy puts all these in the one soul, avsvua, ψυχῆ, 
or animus. And if here there is an allusion to the 
heathen philosophy, it is only popularly, in order to 
express the scrutinizing power of the Word after sin. 
Among the numerous instances in which wuy7 is used 
obviously in the general sense of “soul,” man’s spiritual 
part, the reader may consult Hebr. 6: 19, 10: 39, and 
13:17, “Hope... τὴν ἄγχυραν τῆς ψυχῆς; “We 
are of them that believe, εἰς περιεποίησεν ψυχῆς; 
Church officers “watch for souls, ὠγρυπνοῦσεν ὑπὲρ 
τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν, as they that must give account.” 
In these places the sense of the Platonic ψυχῆ, the 
animal life, as distinguished from the rational spirit, 
would be preposterous. Both ψυχὴ and πνεῦμ are 
often used of the animus and anima, as well as in 
other senses. In the text under discussion it seems 
necessary to distinguish them. Calvin well remarks: 
“Nomen anime sepe idem valet quod spiritus, sed 
quum simul junguntur, prius comprehendit sub se, 
affectus omnes: posterius facultatem quam vocant in- 
tellectualem significat. Ita Paulus: 1 Thess. 5: 23, 
nihil aliud sibi vult, quam ut intellectu et voluntati 
externisque actionibus, puri et casti maneant.” Calvin 
then cites Isaiah 26: 9, “ With my soul (082) have I 
desired thee in the night; yea, with my spirit within 
me (777) will I seek thee early;” and adds, “Scio 
alios secus interpretari: sed mihi facile omnes sani, ut 
spero, assentientur.” 

xoerexos. ‘This adjective is connected, by the reg- 


HEBREWS, CHAP. Iv. v. 18. 161 


ular structure of the sentence, with λόγος. The first 
natural breach or change of structure is at the words 
“καὶ οὐκ ἔστε, &e. of v.13. The reference to God in 
the words ἐνώπεον αὐτοῦ, v. 13, can scarcely necessi- 
tate the supposition of a change of structure, in order 
to introduce God as the subject (as Stuart argues), 
when we have God named expressly atthe beginning 
of the sentence, In connexion with its leading subject, 
ὃ λόγος τοῦ ϑεοῦ, and that subject continues the prom- 
inent one before the reader’s mind to the close of the 
construction at καρδίας. What structure can be more 
fair and easy than this? “ God’s word is enduring, 
and effective, and trenchant, ... and piercing, ... and 
discriminative of the passions and thoughts; and in 
his (God’s) sight there is no creature that is not mani- 
fest.” The classes of mental states distinguished by 
ἐνϑυμήσεων καὶ ἐννοεῶν, refer obviously to the ϑυμὸς 
(emotive principle) and vove (rational power), 1. e. the 
passions and purposes, or intents. 

V.18. ἐνώπεον αὐτοῦ. The reference is to God, 
as is evident from the sentiment, “ Ad] things are na- 
ked and opened,” and from the phrase, ὀφϑαλμοῖς av- 
TOU. τετραχηλεσμένα contains the idea, “laid bare,” 
like the neck of the sacrifice for the knife. 

πρὸς ὃν ἡμῖν ὃ λόγος. The simplest rendering is, 
“To whom is our account,” “reckoning.” In Luke 
16: 2 we have, ὠπόδος τὸν λόγον τῆς olxovoulas σου, 
“Give the account, reckoning, of thy stewardship.” 
Rom. 14:12, ἕκαστος ἡμῶν περὶ ἑαυτοῦ λόγον δώσει 
τῷ ϑεῷ. 1 Pet. 4: 5, οἱ ἀποδώσουσε λόγον τῷ ἑτοίμως 

11 


162 HEBREWS, CHAP. Iv. Vv. 13. 


ἔχοντε κρῖναε ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς. And 13: 17 be- 
low, “They watch for your souls, as they that must 
give account” (ὡς λόγον ἀποδώσοντες). Others have 
translated the word, ‘negotium, or “commercium,” 
quoting in support the Septuagint translation of 
Judges 18:7, waxedy stot (the people of Laish or 
Dan) Σεδωνεῶν καὶ λόγον οὐκ ἔχουσε πρὸς ἄνϑρωπον. 
And again, v. 28, καὶ λόγος οὐκ ἔστε αὐτοῖς μετὰ 
ἄνϑρωπον. Here the Hebrew is DINO? ὈΠΡΤ ΣΝ 737), 
Engl. “They have no business with any man.” De 
Wette says, “nichts zu thun.” To this translation the 
English version seems to lean, in the text under con- 
sideration, “ Him with whom we have to do.” De 
Wette renders, “mit dem zu thun haben.” Either 
sense is allowable, and consistent with the context. 


CHAPTER IV. 14—V. 10. 


ANALYSIS. 


Tue Apostle here takes occasion to exhort his 
hearers to a persevering and confiding adherence to 
Christ as our great High-Priest, vv. 14-16, thus intro- 
ducing the third leading topic of the Epistle, viz. His 
priesthood in comparison with that of the Old Testa- 
ment dispensation; upon the discussion of which he 
now enters, 5: 1-10; which discussion he continues, 
with a single appropriate interruption (from 5: 11 to 
6:), to 10:18. Or, more particularly, he proceeds 
thus: 

Having then (οὖν) a most exalted High-Priest, 
Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast, for (γὰρ) He 
can sympathize with us in our infirmities, having been 
tried as we are, but without sin. Let us therefore 
(ovv) come with holy boldness to God through Him 
for mercy and seasonable grace, 4: 14-16. 

These exhortations he sustains (γὰρ) by the devel- 
opment of Christ’s priestly character which he pro- 
ceeds to make. He commences by laying down the 
leading characteristics of the high-priest of the old 
dispensation: 1st, He was appointed to minister be- 
tween God and man, at the altar, to offer gifts and 
sacrifices for sin, v. 1; 2d, He is able, by reason of 
his own infirmities, to compassionate those of the peo- 
ple; and for the same reason, must offer sacrifices for 


.1604 OHAPS. IV, V.—ANALYSIS. 


himself as well as for them, vv. 2, 3; 3d, He receives 
his appointment from God, as Aaron did, v. 4. Com- 
paring Christ, in the inverse order, the author shows, 
1st, That He assumed not the office to himself, but re- 
ceived his appointment from the Father, vy. 5, 6; 
2d, That, by reason of the frailties and trials to 
which His human nature exposed Him while on earth, — 
He had learned by experience the sufferings incident 
to obedience, though he was the Son of God, vv. 7, 8; 
and 3d, That, having been perfected in heaven, He 
became the author of salvation to all who obey him, 
being, by the appointment of God, a High-Priest after 
the order of Melchizedek, vv. 9, 10. 

This third and last statement involved several im- 
portant points: as the dignity of the-priest and the 
priesthood, the sanctuary in which he officiates, the 
nature and efficacy of his services, which the Apostle 
purposes more fully to unfold; but he here stops, to 
reprove the dulness of his readers, and to exhort them 
to higher attainments. This exhortation occupies 5: 
11-14 and 6: 1-20. 


HEBREWS, CHAP. Iv. V. 14. 165 


COMMENTARY. 


14 Ἔχοντες οὖν ἀρχεερέα μέγαν, διεληλυϑότα τοὺς 
οὐρανούς, Ἰησοῦν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ϑεοῦ, κρατῶμεν 

15 τῆς ὁμολογίας. Οὐ γὰρ ἔχομεν ἀρχεερρέα μὴ 
δυνώμενον συμπαϑῆσαε ταῖς ἀσϑενείαις ἡ μῶν, 
πεπειρασμένον δὲ κατὰ πάντα καϑ' ὁμοιότητα, 

16 χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας. Προςερχώμεϑα οὖν μετὰ παρ- 
ῥησίας τῷ ϑρόνῳ τῆς χάρετος, ἵνα λάβωμεν ἔλεον, 
καὶ yao εὕρωμεν, εἰς εὔκαιρον βοήϑεεαν. 


V.14. Ἔχοντες οὖν, κιτ.Δ. While this sentence 
introduces a new topic, the priesthood of Christ, it is 
yet of the nature of a conclusion from the general 
scope of what has been said. Hence the writer intro- 
duces it by οὖν. He has led his readers, now, over 
the following train of thoughts: Christ is higher than 
angels (ch. 1.); He became man in order to sympa- 
thize with and suffer for us, as our High-Priest (ch. IL 
compared with ch. II]. 1); He is greater than Moses, 
even when the latter is viewed as the internuntius of 
God (ch. III.), while God by Him still offers a glori- 
ous rest to believers (chs. III. and IV.); and He will 
hold us to a strict and heartsearching account for the 
improvement we make of his offers. “Let us therefore 
(οὖν) hold fast of our profession” (zearausy τῆς ὅμο- 
λογέας). Such seems to us the best and most natural 
view of the connexion, making the conjunction deduct- 
ive from the general sum of what has been established 


166 HEBREWS, CHAP. Iv. ν. 14. 


in all the previous discussion, and also from the point 
last established. This view gives to οὖν its most 
customary sense, and presents a consistent meaning. 
Others regard ovy here as a mere particle of transi- 
tion, indicating merely a passage from one topic to 
another. Others, as Stuart, consider it as a particle of 
resumption (“as we were saying,” “accordingly”), 
pointing back to ch. II. 1. Better perhaps than 
these is the sense here attributed to it by Hoogeveen, 
as an inceptive particle (“now then”), indicating 
merely the taking up of a distinct topic. But the 
proper illative sense, first indicated, is best. 

ὠρχεερέα μέγαν. The Apostle evidently calls the 
High-Priest of the new dispensation “ great,” in view 
of what he had said, and was about to-say, of his com- 
parative glory and dignity. There is a reference to 
the same heads of thought, from which the particle 
ovy draws its deduction. The idea that the author 
was compelled to qualify ὠρχεερέα by μέγαν, merely 
to signify that he meant a high-priest proper, and not 
one of the chief priests, because at that time the word 
ἀρχεερεὺς Was used among the Jews for any ex-high- 
priest or head of a course, most unnecessarily emascu- 
lates his meaning. Would not that meaning be sufli- 
ciently indicated by using the word, as it is here used, 
in the singular number? This was judged sufliciently 
discriminative by Matthew (26: 57), Mark (14: 53), 
Luke (22: 54), and John (18: 13). 

διεληλυϑότα τοὺς οὐρανούς, “ Who hath passed 
through the heavens.” This expression seems founded 


HEBREWS, CHAP. Iv. v. 14. 167 


on the dignity of Christ, who, in his mediatorial and 
priestly character, is gone to minister for us in the 
presence of God within the heavenly sanctuary. The 
use of οὐρανοὺς in the plural is doubtless in imitation 
of the Hebrew ὉΠ; and, like the Hebrew word, it is 
used to describe sometimes the lower, or visible, some- 
times the higher heaven, where God holds his spiritual 
court. In the latter sense we find it in 2 Cor. 12: 2, 
ἁρπαγέντα... ἕως τρέτου οὐρανοῦ, and in Hebr. 9: 
24, εἰσῆλθεν 0 Χριστὸς... εἰς αὐτὸν τὸν οὐρανὸν 
(not into the holy places made with hands, ὠντέτυπα 
τῶν ἀληϑενῶν). Butin Eph. 4: 10 we have an ex- 
ample of the former meaning, ὁ καταβάς, αὐτός ἔστε 
καὶ ὃ ἀναβὲς ὑπεράνω πάντων τῶν οὐρανῶν, ἵνω πλη- 
ρώσῃ τὰ πάντα. And in Hebr. 7: 26, Christ is ὕψη- 
λότερος τῶν οὐρανῶν γενόμενος. When, therefore, we 
interpret the Apostle as referring to Christ’s ascension 
through the visible heavens, to reach the upper sanctu- 
ary (as Owen, Kuinoél, and others), we are in strict 
accordance with the idea repeatedly developed in sub- 
sequent parts of the Epistle. 

ὁμολογέας, “The confession, or profession,” viz. of 
our faith in this High-Priest. The usage and proper 
translation of this word in our Epistle was sufficiently 
illustrated on ch. 3:1 above. There seems to be in 
this verse a very noticeable reference to the phrase- 
ology and ideas of that passage. Christ is there called 
the “ Apostle and High-Priest of our profession.” Here, 
we are told, “Since we have this great High-Priest, let 
us hold fast our profession.” 


168 HiBREWS, CHAP. Iv. vv. 15, 16. 


V.15. χαϑ' ὁμοιότητα, “Tempted (tried) as to 
all things after a similitude” (i. 6. to us, his believing 
people). But the nature of these trials is guarded 
and defined by the additional words, χωρὲς ὡμαρτέας. 
They were all such trials as implied nothing sinful in 
their source, and resulted in no sin in the manner in 
which they were borne. We may correctly translate 
xa ὁμοιότητα, ‘similarly’ Thus, in 9: 5 below, we 
have κατὰ μέρος, meaning ‘particularly’ (περὶ ὧν οὐκ 
ἔστε νῦν λέγειν κατὰ μέρος, “of which we cannot now 
speak particularly”). The ὠσϑενείαε with which 
Christ is here said to sympathize, are sufficiently de- 
fined, by the connected idea, to signify not merely the 
natural, external sufferings of our humanity, as cold, 
heat, hunger, pain, but in addition, the trials and sor- 
rows of the mind. Christ bore similar ὠσϑενεέως, yet 
without sin. They are therefore those painful affec- 
tions which are usually accompanied with sin, in our 
fallen nature. How the divine Son could be better 
adapted for this work of sympathy, by his incarnation, 
has been explained above on ch. 2:17. Calvin re 
marks, “Non quia opus talibus rudimentis habuerit 
Filius Dei, sed quia nos aliter, quam de salute nostra 
curam gerit mente, apprehendere non possumus.” The 
connexion of thought between this verse and the pre- 
vious one is not difficult: “We have a great High- 
Priest, such a one that we should hold fast our profes- 
sion of faith in Him; and we can thus prove His value, 
because (γὰρ) He is a sympathizing High-Priest.” 

V.16. Προςερχωμεϑα οὖν, “ Let us come there 


HEBREWS, CHAP. Iv. v. 16. 169 


fore” (because He is a sympathizing, and at the same 
time a great High-Priest), μετὰ παῤῥησίας: “with 
holy confidence or boldness,” “with confiding free- 
dom.” The proper sense of this word has been suffi- 
ciently explained above, in ch. 3: 6. 

τῷ ϑρόνῳ τῆς χάρετος expresses God’s throne, con- 
verted by Christ from a throne of judgment against 
sinners, to one of mercy and grace, to which believers 
have boldness and freedom of access. It is every way 
probable that the author here has in his mind a refer- 
ence to the mercy-seat in the old tabernacle, over 
which the glorious symbol of the divine presence sat, 
and to the intercession of the Jewish high-priest, which 
he so fully discusses below. Perhaps he would here 
suggest the contrast between our throne of grace, and 
the old mercy-seat; for, to the latter none dared come 
but the high-priest, and he but once a year (an idea 
which the Apostle explains in 9: 7, 8 below), while to 
our mercy-seat every believer may come with holy 
freedom, at all times. The Apostle gives a similar ex- 
hortation also at the close of this argument, 10: 19-22. 

iva λάβωμεν ἔλεον, κιτ.λ., “That we may receive 
mercy, and find grace.” Since sin stands between us 
and every communication of the divine favour, the 
bestowal of any grace or help implies an exercise of 
mercy, of compassion and forgiveness towards our 
guilt. "Whenever we seek for help, therefore, and not 
only when we seek the pardon of sin, we tax the di- 
vine mercy. Hence the next clause, εἰς εὔκαερον βοή- 
decay, defines the end of both the preceding verbs. 


170 HEBREWS, CHAP. v. Vv. 1. 


The preposition here expresses the end of the actions 
preceding, and should be translated “for,” or “in or- 
der to;” not with Stuart, “with respect to.” “That 
we may receive mercy, and find grace for timely 


assistance.” 


V. 1 Πῶς yao coyuosds ἐξ ἀνθρώπων λαμβα- 
νόμενος, ὑπὲρ ἀνϑρώπων καϑίσταταε τὰ πρὸς τὸν 
ϑεόν, ἵνα προςφέρῃ δῶρώ τὲ καὶ ϑυσίας ὑπὲρ 

2 ὡμαρτεῶν, μετρεοπαϑεῖν δυνώμενος τοῖς ἀγνοδῦσε 
καὶ πλανωμένοις, ἐπεὶ καὶ αὐτὸς περίκειται ἀσϑέ- 
3 γειων" καὶ διὰ ταύτην ὀφείλει, καϑὼς περὶ τοῦ 
λαοῦ, οὕτω καὶ περὶ ἑαυτοῦ προςφέρεεν ὑπὲρ 
4 ἁμαρτεῶν. Καὶ οὐχ ἑαυτῷ τὶς λαμβάνεε τὴν τε- 
μήν, ἀλλὰ [ὁ] καλούμενος ὑπὸ τοῦ ϑεοῦ, καϑά- 
ας 
περ καὶ [Ὁ] ‘Aaoor. 


V.1. γὰρ has here its usual causal force, which is 
easliy perceived. As was stated in the Analysis, the 
author, having drawn an exhortation from the preced- 
ing topics, sustains it further by the subsequent devel- 
opment of Christ’s priestly character, which he pre- 
sents: “The previous exhortation is reasonable; for 
Christ has the following characteristics as a High- 
Priest.” Such seems to be the force of the connective 
in this place. 

Πᾶς ἀρχεερεύς. These words plainly intend Le- 
vitical high-priests, as is evident from the defining 
phrase, ἐξ ἀνϑρώπων λωμβανόμενος, and also from 
the description of vv. 2, 3, 4. He is one who καὶ au- 


HEBREWS, CHAP. v. v. 1. 171 


τὸς megexeirac ἀσϑενείαν: he is under obligation to 
bring a sin-offering for himself, as well as for the peo- 
ple; and he does not take the honour to himself, but 
receives it from God, like Aaron. “4oycegeis is often, 
in the Gospels, employed to designate the heads or 
chiefs of the twenty-four classes into which the Aaronic 
priests were distributed. Thus in Matt. 2: 4, “ Herod 
... gathering together πώντας τοὺς ἀρχεερεῖς καὶ 
γραμματεῖς τοῦ λαοῦ, inquired of them where Christ 
should be born.” Matt. 26:38, Tore συνήχϑησαν οἱ 
ἀρχιερεῖς, καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς, καὶ of πρεσβύτεροι TOU 
λαοῦ. Mark 14:1, Καὶ ἐζήτουν of ἀρχεερεῖς καὶ of 
γραμματεῖς, πῶς αὐτὸν ἐν δόλῳ χρατησαντὲς UNO#TEI- 
γωσεν. And in Mark 14: 53, above quoted, we have 
the word used in the singular of the high-priest, and 
in the plural of the chiefs of courses. Sometimes 
also it is used of those who had held the office of 
high-priests, but, in consequence of the anarchy of the 
times, had ceased to exercise it; or of such as were 
substitutes. Such was Annas, possibly both an ex- 
high-priest and a substitute, at times, for his son-in- 
law, Caiaphas. In Luke 3:2, we find that John 
began to preach “when Annas and Caiaphas were 
high-priests” (ἐπὶ ἀρχεερέως “Avva καὶ Καϊάφα). In 
John 18: 18, Caiaphas is said to be the high-priest for 
that year; and Annas is his father-in-law. In Acts 
4:6, Annas is called high-priest (in the same year), on 
an occasion when Caiaphas was present. But properly 
it denotes, as here, the head of the whole Aaronic min- 
istry, “30 yan. This officer “is constituted in the 


172 HEBREWS, CHAP. v. v. 1. 


stead of, or on behalf of, men (ὑπὲρ avitoanwy), for 
those things that relate to God,” τὰ πρὸς τὸν ϑεόν. 
iva προσφέρῃ δῶρώ te καὶ ϑυσίας ὑπὲρ ὡμαρτεῶν. 
iva here points out the purpose of the high-priest’s 
appointment. The two words δῶρά re καὶ ϑυσέίαε 
embrace all kinds of offerings. The former, as distin- 
guished from the latter, denotes unbloody offerings ; 
such as the first fruits, the dough of the first reaped 
corn, &e. In this place, of course, as the other word 
is expressly added, δῶρα has its more limited and defi- 
nite sense. But it is often general in its signification, 
including all “ offerings,” as in ch.8: 4 below. θΘυσέαε 
(from va) properly denotes bloody sacrifices, and is 
generally so used when its sense is not figurative. For 
instance, Luke 2: 24, the mother and reputed father 
of Jesus brought him up to Jerusalem to offer a sacri- 
fice, according to that which is said in the law of the 
Lord (dodvac ϑυσίαν). In Hebr. 18: 15, 16, we have 
an instance of its figurative use, where we are directed 
to “offer through Christ the sacrifice of praise to God 
continually, even the fruit of our lips;” and doing 
good and communicating are called “sacrifices well- 
pleasing to God.” But sometimes, also, ϑυσέαε ex- 
presses generally all kinds of offerings, as in Mark 9: 
49, πᾶσα ϑυσία ahi ἁλεσϑήσεται. Referring to Levi- 
ticus 2: 13, we learn that such is its meaning in this 
passage of Mark; and that the Septuagint have used 
it in that place, as the translation of the Hebr. "Aya. 
The words ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτεῶν, in the verse we are dis- 
cussing, must be understood of course as depending on 


HEBREWS, CHAP. v. V. 2. 173 


ϑυσίωε alone: inasmuch as δῶρα here signifies those 
gifts which were not proper “ sin-offerings.” 

V. ὃ. μετριοπαϑεῖν δυνάμενος. This verb, ac- 
cording to the classic usage, signifies “to moderate 
one’s passions,” and designates the Platonic ὠπαϑῆς, as 
distinguished from the Stoic. This verse is the only 
one in the New Test. in which it occurs. In Josephus, 
Jewish Antiq. lib. 12, ¢. ὃ, $2, it occurs in describing 
the privileges offered to the Jews, after their rebellions 
began: “ One may well be astonished at the generos- 
ity of Vespasian and Titus, that, after so great wars 
and contests which they had from us, they should use 
such moderation.” The meaning in the place under 
discussion seems to be, “to be kind or compassionate.” 
Calvin says, “idem valere puto, acsi dictum est, accom- 
modare se ad συμπαϑεῖαν." 

τοῖς ἀγνοδῦσε καὶ πλανωμένοις. The former of 
these participles is used by the Septuagint for 530 in 
Levit. 5: 18, and in Levit. 4:13 for "30. The latter, 
πλανωμένοις, is used by them chiefly for 77m. The 
two words, as used here, seem designed to carry a 
sense more comprehensive, like our modern phrase, 
“spiritually blind and erring.” Man by nature is 
darkened and depraved; and hence he needs an in- 
tereessor who can be kindly to him in these defects of 
his nature. 

ἐπεὶ καὶ avros περίχειταε ἀσϑένειαν. 'The verb is 
here used in a passive sense, “is surrounded,” and the 
accusative expresses the remoter object affected by its 
action. Verbs which in the active take two objects, 


114 HEBREWS, OHAP. V. Vv. 38. 


one more direct and immediate, of the person affected, 
in the accusative or dative, and another of the thing, 
in the passive retain the latter. See Winer’s Id. New 
Test. 882. ὅ, p. 179. Kiihner’s Gr. Gram. 8281. A 
similar instance of this construction occurs in Acts 28; 
20, τὴν ἅλυσεν ταύτην περέκεεμαε, “1 am encompassed 
as respects this chain.” (In the active sense it would 
be written, τὴν ἅλυσεν ταύτην περέκειταί με, “ He puts 
around me this chain.” A like construction of the 
accus. with a passive participle, may be seen in Hebr. 
10:22, ἐῤρῥαντεσμένοε τὰς καρδίας ἀπὸ συνειδήσεως 
πονηρῶς, “sprinkled, as respects our hearts, from an 
evil conscience.” 

Υ. 8. χαὶ διὰ ταύτην ὀφείλει, 4.0.2. ταύτην eVi- 
dently points out ἀσϑενείων, which is to be supplied 
to it; and the succeeding part of the verse as clearly 
defines this ¢o’svecay to be moral infirmity, or sin; 
for, on account of it, there was necessity for sin-offer- 
ings: περὶ τοῦ λαοῦ... καὶ περὲ ἑαυτοῦ, “As on be 
half of the people, so also on behalf of himself.” The 
force of this preposition here is equivalent to that of 
ὑπὲρ in similar constructions. From its primary sense 
of “around,” easily comes the tropical sense, which it 
has almost every where in Greek prose, of “about,” 
i. e. the object about which as its causal point, or cen- 
tre, the action concerns itself; and hence the nearly 
allied senses of “on account of,” “on behalf of” Let 
the reader consult John 11: 19, ive παραμυϑήσωνταε 
᾿αὐτὰς περὲ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτῶν, “that they might 
console them about their brother.” Rom. 8: ὃ, “ God 


HEBREWS, CHAP. v. v. 4. 175 


sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and 
for sin (καὶ πὲρὲ ἁμαρτίας), condemned sin in the 
flesh.” 1 Pet. 8: 18, περὲ ducorias ἔπαϑε (Χριστός). 
Acts 8:15, προσηύξαντο περὶ αὐτῶν, “who (the apos- 
tles) prayed on their behalf” (i. e. of the Samaritan 
converts). See Winer’s Id. New Test. $51. e & 1. 
The account of these offerings for the high-priest’s own 
sins may be seen in Levit. ch. 8, and ch. 16: 6, 11, 17. 
The greatest care is not superfluous in fixing the sense 
which Scripture usage gives to these prepositions, be- 
cause it is by them that the ideas of substitution and 
atonement are taught, in many important passages. 

V.4. Kai οὐχ ἑαυτῷ τὶς haw Save, κιτιΔ. The 
author has in mind the requisitions of the Jaw. No 
one lawfully assumes the honour to himself. The 
Apostle has not in mind those cases, so frequent in 
the later days of the Jewish commonwealth, when 
priests illegally intruded into the sacred office. They 
are tacitly set aside, as being of course no priests in 
the eyes of any intelligent and consistent Jew. There 
is, therefore, no need to attribute to AauPavec here, a 
subjunctive sense, as does Kuinoé]. The law appoint- 
ing to the priesthood may be seen in Exod. 28: 1. 

ὃ καλούμενος ... ὁ ‘Aagwy. . In many critical edi- 
tions of the New Test. the articles are expunged before 
these two words, on the authority of many Mss. ‘The 
sense is little affected by their retention or rejection. 
The doctrine is that every high-priest must, like Aaron, 
receive his appointment from God. The Levitical in- 
stitution derived all its authority from Him. 


176 ΒΕ ΒΕ Ws, OMAP. V. v. 5. 


co ε ‘ © 2 ue 
5 Οὕτω καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς οὐχ ἑαυτὸν ἐδόξασε γενὴ- 
~ , Ud » , c / , 
ὅῆναε ὠρχεερέω, GAN ὃ λαλήσας πρὸς αὐτὸν" 
¢ ε 4 OF , \ ὩΣ , , 
νέος μου εἰ σύ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκα GE” * 


o> 


9. \ . ’ © , / ‘ (a4 \ « \ > ‘ 

καϑὼς καὶ ἕν ἑτέρῳ λέγεε συ ἑερεὺυς εἰς TOY 

Ἵ >~ \ \ iy . δέ ἥν ἘΝ γ - 
«ἰῶνα xara τὴν ταξεν δῖΊελχεσεδὲκ Oc ὃν ταῖς 

ε Δ - Ἁ « - , 

ἡμέρωις τῆς σαρχὸς αὑτοῦ, δεησεις τὲ καὶ txETN- 
, " ‘ ‘J ’ La > ‘ Ἴ , 

ρίας πρὸς τὸν Ovvausvoy σωζεεν αὐτὸν ἐκ ϑανά- 

Ἀ ~ ~ r 

του, μετὰ κραυγῆς ἰσχυρᾶς καὶ δακρύων προς- 
Ui ‘ > ων δ ἃ νὸς ~ 5) , ᾿ 

ἐνέγκας, καὶ εἰρακουσϑεὶς απὸ τῆς εὐλαβείας 


[9] 


' »” «" » ϑι-. κ. ἣ ” ‘ c 

καίπερ ὧν vios, ἔμαϑεν ag ov ἔπαϑϑε τὴν ὑπα- 
r ΕῚ 4 - , 

9 κοὴν, καὶ τελειωθεὶς ἐγένετο τοῖς ὑπακουουσεν 
> ~ ~ » ᾿ , > , 

10 αὐτῷ πᾶσεν atrios σωτηρίας αἰωνέου,. προςαγο- 
A c \ ~ ~ 3 Ἁ x Ἁ ΄ 

ρευϑεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ ϑεοῦ ἀρχεερεὺς κατὰ τὴν ταξεν 


Μελχεσεδέκ. 


Υ. 5. γενηϑῆναε, “to be,” “to become,” in the 


? which is a most familiar 


sense of “to be appointed ;’ 
usage in many languages. Thus: Col. 1: 28, svayye 
Riou... ow ἐγενόμην ἐγὼ Παῦλος δεάκονος, and y. 25, 
(ἐκκλησίαν ἧς ἐγενόμην ἐγὼ δεώκονος. 

GAR 6 λαλήσας πρὸς αὐτόν" υἱός μου, κιτ.2. The 
quotation of this verse is from Ps. 2: 7. Some, as Cal- 
vin, understand it as a proof here, of Christ’s appoint- 
ment by God to his high-priesthood. But this seems 
not to be the design of the author, nor fairly contained 
in the quotation. (Indeed, the subject of the whole 
second Psalm is rather Christ’s kingly office than his 
priesthood.) The quotation is rather a periphrasis, to 
express, rhetorically, Him who did appoint Christ, i. 6. 
God. A similar periphrasis may be seen in vy. 7, πρὸς 
τὸν δννώμενον σώζειν αὐτόν, z.r.A. In such a case 


HEBREWS, CHAP. v. V. 6. 177 


there is always some appropriateness in the attribute 
or work, which is periphrastically put for the subject, 
with respect to the matter the speaker has in hand. 
Thus, upon these words (v. 7), Calvin remarks: “ His 
verbis significat rite eum orasse, quia ad unum Deum 
Liberatorem confugerit.” And so, in the verse under 
discussion, the author uses the circumlocution with de- 
sign to call attention to the fitness of the thing, in that 
it was the Father who conferred this honour upon the 
Son. The construction should be thus completed: 
“Christ did not glorify himself to be made a high- 
priest, but He glorified him (with this appointment) 
who said unto him, Thou art my Son, to-day have I 
begotten thee.” The proof that God did confer this 
appointment is presented in the following verse. 

V.6. χαϑὼς καὶ ἐν ἑτέρῳ, x.7.4. The author 
now proceeds to establish his point, by this citation 
from Ps. 110: 4. He uses the very words of the Sep- 
tuagint. The reader will not be detained with any 
discussion of the propriety of a messianic application 
of this Psalm, which is most indisputably referable to 
Christ, of all the Psalms. Hengstenberg may be con- 
sulted upon it. The Apostle’s use of the two citations 
is as though he had said, “ἢ who had first acknow- 
ledged Christ as his Son, conferred on him the priest- 
hood; of which last point here is the proof: that he 
hath accordingly said to him, in another place, ‘Thou 
art a Priest forever, after the order of Melchisedek.’” 

κατὰ τὴν raéiv Μελχισεδέκ. The sense of this 
peculiar expression will not here be insisted on, inas- 

12 


178 HEBREWS, OHAP. Vv. Vv. 7. 


much as the Apostle both explains and urges it below 
in the seventh chapter. It is a translation of the He- 
brew "1723752. Thus the third trait of a high-priest 
is proved of Christ. 

V.7. ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς σαρκὸς αὑτοῦ. These 
words evidently express the days of his incarnation 
and humiliation on earth. ‘The whole connexion 
evinces this. 

δεήσεις τὲ καὶ ἐκετηρίας way be most safely ex- 
plained as synonymes, used thus to give the intensive 
sense of most urgent prayers. Thus in v. 2 we saw 
the two words ὠγνοῦῦσε καὶ πλανωμένοις used In a 
similar way, and here χραυγῆς ἰσχυρᾶς καὶ δακρύων. 
The agonizing supplications here instanced by the 
Apostle, were doubtless those which~are related in 
Matt. 26: 38, 39, 42, 44, and Luke 22: 42, 44, when 
the Saviour prayed repeatedly, “O my Father, if it be 
possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not 
as I will, but as thou wilt ;” and perhaps we may also 
include that recorded in Matt. 27: 46, “My God, my 
God, why hast thou forsaken me ?” - 

καὶ sicaxovotsic ἀπὸ τῆς εὐλαβείας. Some com- 
mentators translate these words, “And was heard on 
account of His reverence (or piety).” It must be con- 
ceded that these critics have countenance in assigning 
such a sense to ὠπό. We find it used to express the 
reason (why or wherefore) of an action in Luke 19: 3, 
Καὶ ἐζήτεε ἰδεῖν Ἰησοῦν τίς ἐστε καὶ οὐκ ἠδύνατο 
ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄχλου, “and was not able because of the 
crowd.” In John 21: 0, Ἔβϑαλον οὖν, καὶ οὐκέτε αὐτὸ 


HEBREWS, CHAP. v. v. 7%. 119 


ἑλκῦσαε ἰσχυσαν ἀπὸ τοῦ πλήϑους τῶν ἐχϑύων, 
“They were not strong enough to draw it, because of 
the quantity of fishes ;” and in Acts 22:11, Ὡς δὲ οὐκ 
ἐνέβλεπον ἀπὸ τῆς δόξης τοῦ φωτὸς éxsivov, “ When I 
saw not, because of the glory of that light,” &. And 
the Vulgate renders the phrase under discussion, pro 
sua reverentia. εὐλαβείας also has the sense of rever- 
ence or pious fear in Hebr. 12: 28 below, which is the 
only other place in the New Test. where it occurs. 
And this sense is not unusual in classic Greek. The 
verb εὐλαβέομαε is used only in Acts 23: 10, Πολλῆς 
δὲ γενομένης στάσεως, εὐλαβηϑεὶς ὃ χελέαρχος, and in 
Hebr. 11: 1, Νῶε... εὐλαβηϑεὶς κατεσκεύασε χεβω- 
τόν, ἄτα., in the former of which places, certainly, and 
in the latter most probably, it has the sense of mere 
natural fear. On the other hand, the adjective εὐλα- 
βὴς occurs in Luke 2: 25 of the venerable Simeon, in 
Acts 2:5 of the devout Jews, and 8: 2 of the pious 
persons who buried Stephen; in each place evidently 
in the sense of “devout,” “God-fearing:” so that this 
rendering could be sufficiently sustained by the usage 
and syntax of the New Test. Greek, and is not in itself 
inappropriate. 

The larger number of interpreters, among whom 
are Stuart, Bloomfield, and Calvin, interpret sésazov- 
σϑεὶς as a ‘constructio pregnans, in the sense of 
“was delivered,” and εὐλα, θείας as natural fear, put by 
metonymy for ‘the thing feared” This sense of the 
participle is illustrated by reference to Ps. 22: 22 (in 
Engl. vers. v. 21), “Save me from the lion’s mouth ; 


180 HEBREWS, CHAP. Vv. V. 7. 


for thou hast heard me from the horns of the uni- 
corns,” where the verb "22°0in is placed to express 
the parallelism to "2722 5%) "pa. Calvin remarks, 
“Primum, simpliciter εὐλαβείωαν ponit; non suam: 
Deinde, est ὠπὸ non ὑπέρ, aut aliquid simile, quod 
causam designet.” (This reason, however, is hardly 
valid, as may be seen by the places cited where eo 
expresses “why or wherefore.”) “Quum igitur εὐλα- 
βεία Grecis plerumque sit metus aut sollicitudo, non 
dubito quin significet Apostolus, exauditum fuisse 
Christum ex eo quod timebat, ne scilicet, malis obrutus 
succumberet, vel morte absorberetur.” In this sense 
of natural fear, εὐλαβεία 18 often employed in the 
Septuagint and later classics; and such a metonymy 
as is proposed, is not impossible. This, perhaps, is one 
of the cases in which either of the senses proposed is 
so consistent with the context and with usage, that it 
is both unnecessary and difficult for the critical stu- 
dent to decide between them. Stuart (in his Exeursus 
XI.) remarks that the true point of difficulty is in the 
question, “ What was it, which was the object of Christ’s 
fear at this time, and from which he was delivered in 
answer to his prayer?” He was not delivered from the 
pangs of the vicarious death he expected, either bodily 
or spiritual; for he bore them to the full. And this 
difficulty, he adds, has been met by few or none of 
the interpreters. The answer he gives, in accordance 
with the rendering adopted by him, Calvin, and many 
others, is, that the subject of Christ’s petitions here 
was his fear lest the weakness of human nature should 


HEBREWS, OHAP. Vv. Vv. 1%. 181 


sink under his agonies, before his crucifixion was ac- 
complished, and so the plan preordained for his death 
should be disappointed ; that he besought deliverance 
from this premature failure of his human powers of 
endurance, and that the answer is to be seen in the 
fact noted Luke 22:48, “ And there appeared an 
angel unto Him from heaven, strengthening Him.” 
In a similar strain Calvin remarks, “Sed quomodo ex- 
auditus fuit Christus e suo metu, quum mortem quam 
horrebat, subierit? Respondeo; finem timoris spec- 
tandum esse. Cur enim mortem refugiebat, nisi quod 
in ea cernebat maledictionem Dei, quod cum scelerum 
omnium reatu, ipsisque inferis luctandum erat? Hine 
trepidatio et anxietas, quod Dei judicium plus quam 
formidabile est. Ergo, quod volebat obtinuit, ut e 
mortis doloribus victor emergeret, ut salvifica Patris 
manu sustineretuy, ut post hoc certamen de Satano, 
peccato et inferis gloriosum triumphum ageret.” 

It may here be remarked, that we are not compel- 
led to find some particular in which the prayer of the 
Redeemer was distinctly answered, in order to satisfy 
the meaning of the Apostle: for, first, to one who can- 
didly reads the passages above cited from the Gospels, 
and here evidently referred to, we think it will seem 
much the more natural sense, that Christ’s human 
nature shrank from the dreadful task he had piously 
undertaken, and that he prayed, yet submissively, 
that, if there were any proper way to evade it, he 
might be permitted to do so. Of his human nature it 
was true, as he remarked of his disciples, though true 


182 HEBREWS, OHAP. v. V. 7. 


of him in a higher and sinless sense, that, “ while the 
spirit was willing, the flesh was weak.” Second, if we 
adopt the first interpretation above explained, ‘He 
was heard because of his pious reverence,’ we are not 
compelled to suppose that his prayer was answered at 
all. The prayer of the pious man is often “heard,” 
and accepted, but never directly answered, when the 
objects of his desire are temporal, and such as may or 
may not be agreeable to the better will and wisdom of 
God. Many a follower of Christ has prayed, like his 
divine Master, for deliverance from calamity (see 2 Cor. 
12:7, 8), and God has affectionately received his 
prayer, because it was offered in faith, love, and sub- 
mission ; and yet has not directly answered it, but has 
given instead the better gift of grace to endure the 
calamity. It was from the overlooking of this truth, 
that the supposed necessity arose, which these com- 
mentators endeavour to meet. The question might 
plausibly be asked, whether such submission in Christ, 
to the enduring of a death which he had besought 
leave to evade, was not the ὑπακοὴν which we are 
told, in v. 8, ‘he learned from what he suffered’ “ He, 
in the days of his incarnation, offered supplications and 
prayers, with strong crying and tears, to Him who was 
able to save him from death (the object of his fear, 
and the thing from which he prayed to be saved), and 
while he was heard on account of his reverential piety, 
yet, though Son of God, he was taught submission 
from the things which he suffered.” Such, we would 
offer, with diffidence, as the fairest and most natural 





HEBREWS, CHAP. v. V. 8. 183 


paraphrase of this vexed passage. It has the advan- 
tage, at least, of retaining for the prayers of Gethse- 
mane, that sense which has usually been accepted as 
the obvious one, by God’s people, in their un-critical 
reading of the passage by the light of common sense. 

Υ. 8. viocis here used without the article, as in 
1: 1 above. His sonship to God is here obviously in- 
tended, for God is the person addressed by his prayers. 

᾿ἔμαϑεν should be construed with ὃς in v. 7, as its 
nominative. To press such a phrase to the refinements 
of its meaning, would be uncritical. We are to take 
it in the light of the Apostle’s scope. We are by 
no means to understand him as teaching that Christ 
learned submission by his sufferings, in the sense that 
he was wrsubmissive before; and yet, we are author- 
ized by Luke 2: 52 (‘Jesus increased in wisdom and 
stature, and iz favour with God and man’), to believe 
that, though the human nature of the Redeemer was 
entirely holy from its beginning, there was a progress 
and growth in its knowledge, and in the strength and 
beauty of its graces; even as there is in “the spirits 
of just men made perfect.” The Apostle’s intent may 
be seen by referring to v. 2 above. The priest among 
men is one who can have compassion on the ignorant, 
and on them that are out of the way, for that he him- 
self also is compassed with infirmity. And now, in 
developing the resemblance of Christ to his type, he 
should be simply and popularly understood as declar- 
ing, that Christ, though he was νέός, condescended to 
suffer, to submit his human will to God’s, and thus to 


184 HEBREWS, CHAP. ν᾿ Vv. 9, 10. 


know from experience what were the trials of obe- 
dience to which his people were subjected. The 
Apostle, proceeding to take up the points of analogy 
between the Jewish high-priest and Christ, in the in- 
verse order to that of their first statement, thus estab- 
lishes the second. (See Analysis above.) In vs. 9, 
10, he now proceeds to the third point, which was the 
first in his description of the human priest. ‘This point 
is, that the priest from among men is one whose func- 
tion is to minister between God and man at the altar, 
to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. In the light of 
this fact, the succeeding verses will be easily understood. 

V. 9. τελεεωϑεὶς 18 translated by Calvin (who 
perhaps looks at this whole passage too practically), 
sanctificatus. Its proper force is, “perfected, or glori- 
fied in heaven,” having finished his work on earth. 
Referring to the remarks on τελεεῶσαε in 2: 10 above, 
the reader will remember that the general idea found 
in this verb was this: the bringing of an object to a 
state of completeness appropriate to its proposed con- 
dition, whatever that might be. The context there is 
exactly similar to that of the text now under discus- 
sion. There, the Captain of our salvation was_per- 
fected through sufferings; here, it is by learning obe- 
dience from what he suffered. 

Vv. 9,10. These verses declare that Christ, now 
glorified in heaven, procures salvation for all his peo- 
ple, acting, by the appointment of God, as a High- 
Priest forever after the order of Melchisedek. This 
third and last statement involves so many important 


γῶν EE νυνυ δον ψ θὰ 


HEBREWS, CHAP. v. v. 10. 185 


points of resemblance or contrast to the Levitical 
priesthood, that the author occupies from ch. VII. to 
X. 18, in developing them. They include the dig- 
nity of the priest and the priesthood, the sanctuary in 
which he officiates, and the nature and efficacy of his 
services. 

V. 10. προςζαγορευϑείς. There seems to be in 
this word an allusion to Ps. 110: 4, which has been 
already quoted by the author in proof of his position. 
We understand it in the sense “appointed ;” since, in 
the nature of the case, for God to call him High-Priest, 
or salute him as such, is to appoint him to that. office. 


ΓΤ Vi. Lea W 1. ἀν 


ANALYSIS. 


Tue author delays the discussion by stopping to 
reprove the dulness of those whom he addressed, 
5: 11-14, and to incite them to make higher attain- 
ments, 6: 1-12. 

Concerning Christ as a Priest he had much to say, 
and difficult on account of their dulness; for (γὰρ) 
whereas they ought to be teachers, they needed to be 
taught the very elements of the oracles of God, and 
to be fed on milk, not strong food, vy. 11, 19, Thus 
were they dull; for (γάρ), (to make-an appeal to a 
general truth, which confirmed his complaint in their 
particular case), those that fed on milk were unskilled 
in the word, for (γὰρ) they were babes; but strong 
food was for the mature, who had senses trained by 
habit to discern good and evil, vv. 13, 14. 

Hence (4.0) he exhorts them to leave the ele- 
ments, and go on to higher attainments, not always 
working at the foundation only, ch. 6:1, 2. And 
(in order to point them to their dependence on God 
as the source of all grace, and prepare the way for the 
first incitement which he offers), he adds: “This will 
we do if God permit.” For (γάρ), Ist, there are 
spiritual advantages and privileges, from which if men 
apostatize, it is utterly impossible (in the economy of 
the grace of God, who has thus ordained), to bring 


— Ee 


CHAPS. V., VI.—ANALYSIS. 187 


them again to repent; for (yao), speaking figuratively, 
the well-watered and fruitful ground is blessed of God; 
but that which, in spite of good culture and watering, 
bears only thorns and briers, is rejected of Him, to be 
cursed and burnt, vv. 3-6, 7, 8. But 2d (δέ), for 
their encouragement, though he thus spake, he was 
persuaded of better and saving things concerning 
them. For God would not forget their. love shown 
unto His name in both past and present services, vv. 
9, 10. But yet (δὲ) he adds, he would have them 
show this same zeal to be fully assured of their hope 
unto.the end; that they might be, not sluggards in 
the faith, but imitators of those who through faith and 
patience inherit the promises, vv. 11, 12. 

This last idea he proceeds, 3d, to illustrate and en- 
force, in the remainder of the chapter. 


188 HEBREWS, CHAP. Ὁ. Vv. ll. 


COMMENTARY. 


11 Περὶ οὗ πολὺς ἡμῖν 6 λόγος καὶ δυςερμήνευτος 

12 λέγειν, ἐπεὶ νωϑροὶ γεγόνατε ταῖς ἀκοαῖς. Καὶ 
γὰρ ὀφείλοντες εἶναε διδάσκαλοι διὰ τὸν χρόνον, 
πάλεν χρείαν ἔχετε τοῦ διδάσκειν ὑμᾶς, τίνα τὰ 
στοιχεῖα τῆς ἀρχῆς τῶν λογίων τοῦ ὥεοῦ" καὶ 
γεγόνατε χρείαν ἔχοντες γάλακτος, καὶ οὐ στερεᾶς 

18 τροφῆς. Πᾶς γὰρ ὃ μετέχων γάλακτος, ἄπεερος 

14 λόγου δικαιοσύνης " νήπεος γάρ ἐστε. Τελείων δέ 
ἔστεν ἡ στερεὼ τροφή, τῶν διὰ τὴν ἕξεν τὰ αἰσϑη- 
τήρεα γεγυμνασμένα ἐχόντων πρὸς δεώκρεσεν κα- 
λοῦ τε καὶ κακοῦ. 


V.11. Περὶ ov. This relative refers not to Mel- 
chisedek, the nearest noun preceding it, but to Christ, 
the ἀρχεερεὺς mentioned just before, who has been all 
along the leading subject of discourse. This is shown 
by all the following argument in chapters 7 to 10: 18. 

δυςερμήνευτος means here, “hard to -expound.” 
This difficulty arose not from the intrinsic nature of 
the discourse the Apostle was about to hold, but from 
their dulness of spiritual apprehension, as is distinctly 
indicated by the Apostle in the next clause. 

λέγειν is by some made to depend on λόγος, as 
Stuart. They suppose an instance of ‘trajection’ of 
words similar to some of those explained by Winer 
(Id. New Test. $65). Others make it depend on dus- 
ἐρμήνευτος, as Calvin, who translates, “ difficilis expli- 


HEBREWS, CHAP. Vv. Vv. 12. 189 


catu.” The latter construction is certainly to be pre- 
ferred, for the reason that we are never to impute to 
a writer any difficulty or irregularity of construction, 
where the more natural and easy one will stand. A 
trajection is certainly such an anomaly, though not un- 
grammatical. Our construction makes the phrase a 
somewhat redundant one, though not more so than the 
other. It is favoured not only by the position of the 
words, but by the reason closely conjoined, ἐπεί, &e. 

vadoot. The meaning of this adjective and its de- 
fining words, is sufficiently indicated in the following 
context. They who should have been teachers, had 
need to be taught the rudiments of Christianity. 
ἀκοαῖς is evidently put for “perceptions,” for it is by 
the hearmg we get our perceptions. The sense is, 
“dull of perception.” In ch. 6:12 below, we have 
the word νωϑροὶ used in the somewhat different sense, 
of dulness as to Christian activities and the exercise of 
gracious affections. 

V. 12. εἶναε διδάσκαλοι διὰ τὸν χρόνον. duce 
here indicates the ground or reason, just as it does in 
v.14, διὰ ἕξεν. “Yea; for you, who, on account of 
the time (you have been professing Christianity), 
ought to be teachers, have again need of some one’s 
teaching you,” &c. 

τὰ στοιχεῖα τῆς ἀρχῆς Mean “first elements.” The 
usage of orocyeic in this sense is frequent. (See Gal. 
4:3, 9.) What these elements or rudiments were, 
may be seen in 6: 1-3 below; namely, repentance 
from dead works; faith upon God, the doctrine of bap- 


190 HEBREWS, OHAP. v. Vv. 138. 


tisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the 
dead, and eternal judgment. We have rendered ὠρχῆς 
as equivalent to an adjective. According to this 
Hebraizing usage, the property or quality of a noun 
which would usually be expressed by an adjective, is 
often in the New Test. expressed by a genitive. Thus, 
in Luke 16: 8, we have οἰκονόμον τῆς ἀδικίας, for wn- 
righteous steward. We have seen two similar exam- 
ples also in our Epistle. In 3:1 we had ὠρχεερέα τῆς 
ὁμολογίας ἡμῶν, for “high-priest professed by us;” 
and in 4: 2, ὃ λόγος τῆς ἀκοῆς, for “the word heard.” 
So στοιχεῖα ἀρχῆς for “first rudiments.” See Winer’s 
Id. New Test. 884, 2. 

τῶν λογίων τοῦ ϑεοῦ. These words (the oracles 
of God), are used in Acts 7:88 (ὅς ἐδέξατο hoya 
ζῶντα δοῦναε ἡμῖν), and in Rom. 3: 2 (Ἰουδαῖοε ἐπε- 
στεύϑησαν ta hoyta τοῦ Hsov), to express the Serip- 
tures of the Old Test.; and here, and in 1 Pet. 4: 11 
(Ei reg λαλεῖ, ὡς λόγεα Hsov), they indicate the Serip- 
tures in general, including the New Test. 

V.13. Πᾶς γάρ. This verse is designed to en- 
force and confirm the statements of v. 12, in which the 
Apostle had argued the justice of the reproach he had 
brought against them in verse 11, as being νωϑροί. 
The charge was, “Ye are dull of perception.” The 
proof of this charge (introduced by γὰρ) in v. 12 was, 
‘that when they were old enough Christians to be 
teachers, they still needed to be taught the elements, 
and were in a condition like that of infants, which can- 
not eat strong food, but must still be nourished with 


HEBREWS, OHAP. v. v. 13. 191 


milk. And such a state of things does prove the jus- 
tice of the reproach of v. 11; for, says v. 13, (γὰρ) all 
persons whose spiritual condition is thus like the bodily 
condition of little infants, nursed at the breast, are 
ἄπειρος λόγον δικαιοσύνης : they are spiritually γή- 
aeoe. Ignorance is the characteristic of infants, to- 
gether with feebleness of perception for what is not 
simple” V. 13 therefore contains the major of the 
syllogism. In such cases the illustrative force of γὰρ 
is so prominent (where the argument is carried on by 
an illustrative figure), that it may be well translated 
by our particle ‘now, assumptive of a premise admit- 
ted. This comparison of an immature Christian to an 
infant, and of elementary truths to milk, may be found 
alswtim Iu@ors 3°: 14-2, and’ 1 Pet: 2’ 2: 

λόγου dwxacoovvyg. Many commentators (as 
Abresch, Wahl, Ernesti, Kuinoél) understand these 
words as intended to form an antithesis to re στοιχεῖα 
τῆς ἀρχῆς, &e., and give them the same force with the 
phrase τὴν τελειότητα, 6:1, which is contrasted. with 
τὸν τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ λόγον. So Calvin reads it: 
“ Justitiz sermonem, justitie nomine perfectionem in- 
telligens.” Again: “ Accipit hoe nomen pro integri- 
tate cognitionis, que nos ad perfectionem ducit.” 
This seems to us an incorrect refinement, if pushed too 
far. No antithesis is necessary to preserve the consis- 
tency of the sense; for even if we should so exclude 
all antitheses, and so lower the sense of λόγου δεκαεοσύ- 
yng, as to make it the same in sense with τὰ στοιχεῖα 
τῆς aoxNs, π.τ.λ., the Apostle might still say of them 


192 HEBREWS, OHAP. Vv. Vv. 14. 


that they were unskilled (ézecgoc) in it. Had he not 
already said that ‘they again needed to be taught the 
rudiments?’ The phrase, “ word of God,” often has 
similar adjuncts. In Eph. 1: 13 it is called τὸν λόγον 
τῆς ἀληϑεέας, as Well as in ὃ Tim. 2:15. In Phil. 2: 
16 it is called λόγον ζωῆς. In Acts 20: 82 it is τῷ 
λόγῳ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ, as also in Acts 14: 8. This 
last sense some commentators give to δωκαεοσύνης 
here. In these cases, we decidedly prefer to regard 
the genitive as objective, so that the force of the ex- 
pressions is, “ Zhe word revealing truth, life, grace ;” 
and here, “ Zhe word revealing righteousness.” And 
in this sense, righteousness may be taken in its widest 
meaning. Or if any prefer to consider these geni- 
tives as simply attributive, the sense obtained will be 
“yvighteous word,” like our modern phrase ‘holy word, 
“holy scriptures,” denoting its perfect, excellent, and 
truthful character. Thus a sense would be reached, 
not very different from that of Calvin. 

νήπιος. The sense here intended is sufficiently de- 
fined by the context. It is here manifestly opposed to 
Τελείων in v. 14, and is illustrative of ἄπεερος λόγον 
δωκαιοσύνη. It may be illustrated by a reference to 
1 Cor. 8:1, Kai ἐγώ, ἀδελφοί, οὐκ ἠδυνήϑην λαλῆσαε 
ὑμῖν ὡς πνευματεκοὶς, GAN ὡς σαρκεκοῖς, ὡς νηπίοες 
ἐν Χριστῷ, and to Eph. 4: 14, ive μηκέτε ὦμεν γνήπεοε, 
κλυδωνεζόμενοιε καὶ περιφερόμενος παντὶ ἀνέμῳ τῆς 
διδασκαλίας. The Hebrew Christians were ‘as an 
infant in spiritual strength and knowledge.’ 

V.14. Τελεέίων, as was remarked, is the antithe- 


ee ee νὺΝ 


HEBREWS, CHAP. v. v. 14. 193 


sis of νήπεος, and is defined in the same verse to mean 
‘those who, by reason of use, have their senses exer- 
cised to discern both good and evil’ The student 
may compare 1 Cor. 2:6, Σωφέαν δὲ λαλοῦμεν ἐν 
τοῖς τελείοις. 14:20, μὴ παιδία γίνεσθε ταῖς φρεσίν" 
ἀλλὰ τῇ κακίᾳ νηπεάζετε, ταῖς δὲ φρεσὶ τέλεεοε γένε- 
ods. Eph. 4:18, καταντήσωμεν of πάντες... εἰς 
ἄνδρω τέλειον, and Phil. ὃ : 1ὅ, Ὅσοε οὖν τέλειοι, τοῦτο 
φρονῶμεν. A comparison of all these places will show 
that it refers to the knowledge of the Christian rather 
than to his moral state, and that it signifies, not abso- 
lute perfection, but Christian maturity. 

διὰ τὴν ἕξεν, ‘On account of habit,’ ‘habitual use.’ 
This noun is formed with this sense from ἔχω, just as 
the Latin ‘habit’ is from habeo. The force of the pre- 
position dzz here, has already been illustrated on the 
words διὰ τὸν χρόνον, ν. 12. 

αἰσϑητήρεα. This word has primarily the mean- 
ing of ‘sensorium,’ and thence, ‘the faculty of percep- 
tion.” Calvin remarks upon it, ‘Nec contentus men- 
tem uno verbo dicere, sensus omnes ponit, ut ostendat 
nunquam cessandum esse, donee undique verbo Dei 
instructi armatique ad pugnandum simus, ne qua suis 
fallacitis Sathan obrepat.’ The word is here used in the 
plural, as we say “senses,” for the perceptive powers. 

γεγυμνασμένα Is well rendered, in our English 
version, “exercised.” Thus we find it used in Hebr. 
12: 11, ‘No chastening for the present seemeth to be 
joyous, but grievous; nevertheless, afterward it yield- 


eth the peaceable fruits of righteousness, τοῖς δὲ αὐτῆς 
13 


194 HEBREWS, CHAP. Υ. v. 14. 


γεγυμνασμένοις. 1 Tim, 4:7, “ But refuse profane 
and old wives’ fables, and exercise thyself rather unto 
godliness,” Γύμναζε δὲ σεαυτὸν πρὸς εὐσέβειαν. 2 Pet. 
2:14, καρδίαν γεγυμνασμένην πλεονεξίας ἔχοντες. 
The reference is to the training of the γυμνασία. 

πρὸς διώχρεσιν καλοῦ te καὶ κακοῦ, “to the dis- 
crimination of the good and the evil,” i. 6. of moral good 
and evil. ‘This phrase is evidently intended to express 
a high degree of spiritual discrimination. This must 
embrace a perception both of that which is evil and 
of that which is good. Calvin well remarks: ‘ Neque 
enim aliter in veritate rite edocti sumus, quam si ejus 
preesidio muniamur adversus Satanze mendacia’ There 
is a striking resemblance between this phrase and the 
one in Gen. 3:5, by which Satan described the enviable 
state which he falsely promised to Eve, on her eating 
the forbidden fruit: ‘Ye shall be as gods, 79) 338 πο. 


‘ a] “l \ ~ > ~ ~ ~ 
VI. 1. 400 ἀφέντες τὸν τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ 
ἌΝ, 


lf Ud ’ / 
λόγον, ἐπὶ τὴν réhscornta φερωμεϑα μὴ πάλεν 
ld ~ 
ϑεμέλεον κατωβαλλόμενοε μετανοίας ἀπὸ νεκρῶν 


to 


, ? “4 ~ ~ 
ἔργων, καὶ πίστεως ἐπὶ Hsov, βαπτιεσμῶν δεδαχῆς, 
> r ’ ~ γ , - x 
ἐπεϑέσεως TE χειρῶν, ἀναστάσεως TE νεκρῶν, καὲ 


eo 


? , σν» - “ 3 7 
κρίματος αἰωνίου. Καὶ τοῦτο ποιήσομεν, ἐάνπερ 
> og c Ud > ͵ Γ ‘ c ae 
4 ἐπετρέπῃ ὁ soc. ᾿Αδύνατον yao, τοὺς «παξ φωτε- 
, ͵ nj ΡΨ - ες 
σϑέντας, γευσαμένους TE τῆς δωρεῶς τῆς ἐπουρα- 
᾿ , r / 
viov, καὶ μετόχους γενηϑέντας πνεύματος ἁγίου, 
‘ ld ~ ~ 4 
5 καὶ καλὸν yevoausvous sov ῥῆμα, δυνάμεις τὲ 
4 >~ f ͵ 
6 μέλλοντος αἰῶνος, καὶ παραπεσόντας Aah ava- 
> ἢ : ~ ~ 
xawivey sig μετάνοιαν, ἀνασταυροῦντας ἑαυτοῖς 


HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. Vv. 1. 195 


ἢ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ϑεοῦ καὶ παραδειγματίζοντας. Γὴ 
γὰρ ἡ πιοῦσα τὸν éx αὐτῆς πολλάκες ἐρχόμενον 
ὑετόν, καὶ τίκτουσα βοτάνην εὔϑετον ἐχείγνοες, δὲ 
οὖς καὶ γεωργεῖταε, μεταλαμβάνει εὐλογίας ἀπὸ 

8 τοῦ ϑεοῦ" ἐκφέρουσα δὲ ἀκάνθας καὶ τριβόλους, 
ἀδόκεμος καὶ κατάρας ἐγγύς, ἧς τὸ τέλος εἰς 
καῦσεν. 


Ch. VI.v. 1. Ζ4ωώ, ‘ Wherefore.” The exhortation 
to go on unto perfection is in view of their νωϑρότης, 
and consequent νηπεότης, which disqualified them for 
the ready discernment of the στερεὰ τροφὴ with which 
the author wished to instruct them, and kept them 
back from the state of reAscoryg to which he wished 
them to attain. 

ἀφέντες. Many commentators render this, “ omit- 
ting,” “passing by,” understanding the author to 
propose to proceed to the discussion of higher doc- 
trines than the elementary ones mentioned, which he 
accordingly does. This is the opinion of Kuinoél and 
Bloomfield, the latter of whom then makes the sen- 
tence, ᾿δύνατον yao, &e. v. 4, depend on μὴ πάλεν 
ϑεμέλεον βαλλόμενοι, x.r.4. As though the Apostle 
reasoned, ‘Let us not lay again the foundation of re- 
pentance, &c. because it is impossible to renew to re- 
pentance those that fall away after,” &c.! Bloomfield 
further says ἀφέντες can only mean “ pretermittentes,” 
“passing over” (for the present); an assertion which 
seems very strange, since, besides this sense, it means 
“leaving,” not only often in the physical sense, but not 


190 HEBREWS, OHAP. VI. Vv. l. 


unfrequently in any of the metaphorical senses of our 
English verb, ‘to leave.’ A reference to any of the 
Lexicons will establish this. Thus, as examples of the 
primary and physical sense, see Matt. 8:15, καὶ ὠφῆ- 
κὲν αὐτὴν ὃ πυρετός. (So in Mark 1:31, Luke 4: 39, 
John 4:52.) Matt. 5:24, ἄφες ἐχεῖ τὸ δῶρόν σου. 
John 4:3, ἀφῆκε τὴν Ἰουδαίαν. Matt. 4: 11, Tore 
ἀφίησεν αὐτὸν ὃ δεώβολος. ν. 30, ἀφέντες τὰ δίκτυα. 
As examples of the meaning to quit, or leave, in a 
metaphorical sense, see Rom. 1:27, ἀφέντες τὴν 
φυσικὴν χρῆσιν τῆς ϑηλείας. Matt. 28 : 98, it is used 
in the sense of “neglecting:” “Ye tithe mint,” &e. 
...#al ἀφήχατε ta βαρύτερα tot νόμον. In Rey. 
2:4, it is used in the sense of relinquishing: τὴν ὠγώ- 
anv Gov τὴν πρώτην ἀφῆκας. This simple sense of 
leaving we think more suitable to the context here, 
which seems to require the hortatory interpretation of 
the passage: “Leaving first principles, let us go on- | 
ward to higher attainments.” It should be remem- 
bered, however, that it is through the truth we are 
sanctified ; through the Scriptures we are made wise 
unto salvation. The exhortation is to a higher know- 
ledge as a means of more grace. The two go in- 
separably connected ; and this is the true idea of the 
τελειότητα Which the author recommends below. Cal- 
vin remarks here: “Jubet autem omitti ejusmodi rudi- 
menta, non quod eorum oblivisci unquam debeant 
fideles, sed quia in illis minime est herendum... 
Nam in extruenda domo nunquam a fundamento disce- 
dere oportet; in eo tamen jaciendo semper laborare 


HEBREWS, CHAP. vI. v. 1. 197 


ridiculum,... Similis est Christianismi ratio; nam 
in rudimentis quasi fundamen; sed continuo post sequi 
debet altior doctrina, que sedificium perficiat.”. We 
do not conceive that the Apostle’s meaning could be 
more accurately expressed, or made plain by a more 
apt illustration. 


This exhortation to leave first principles, not so as | 


to forget them, but to go on to add to them higher 
attainments, was suited to the state of the Hebrew 
Christians, and the occasion; and is enforced by the 
considerations presented in the following verses, 4-12. 


The unsuitableness of these considerations to the other | 


interpretation is not obviated by referring ’40vvaroy 
yao (v. 4) to μὴ πάλεν ϑεμέλεον, κ-τ.λ. (V. 1), which, 
with v. 8 intervening, is certainly very unnatural. 
The obvious reference of the sentence δύνατον γάρ, 
z.t.4. is to the purpose announced v. ὃ, τοῦτο ποιήσο- 
μεν. And it is equally obvious that the thing which 
the Apostle engages here that he and his readers will 
do, is expressed by ἐπὶ τὴν redecoryra peqousda, ἴῃ 
v.1. The exposition of vv. 3, 4, below, will further 
evince this. 

τὸν τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ λόγον. These words 
mean, substantially, ‘the first elements of Christ.’ Cal- 


vin renders them ‘prima tirocinia.”’ They may be com- | 
pared with τὰ στοιχεῖω τῆς ἀρχῆς, “first elements,” in | 


5: 12, as they are obviously intended to express the 
same idea. λόγον τοῦ Χρεστοῦ is, ‘ discourse about, or 
doctrine of Christ, and ὠρχῆς is a genitive attributive, 
giving the sense ‘initial doctrine.’ 


— 


198 HEBREWS, OHAP. VI. Vv. l. 


τελειότητα is the state of the τελεῖοιε in 5: 14; sig- 
nifying an advanced state of spiritual knowledge, the 
ultimatum of which is, of course, perfection in know- 
ledge, and in the holiness which the truth produces. 

geoousia is to be regarded as in the middle voice. 
The Apostle exhorts, ‘Let us bear ourselves on;’ in 
substance, “go on,” unto completeness. 

μὴ addy ϑεμέλεον καταβαλλόμενοι, κιτ.Δ. The 
sense in which the Apostle would not have them lay 
again this foundation, has been already stated in the 
remarks of Calvin, quoted on the preceding pages. 
The Apostle evidently designs to offer the specifica- 
tions which follow, as specimens of those στορχεῖα τῆς 
ἀρχῆς, and of that τὸν τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ λόγον, 
which he has mentioned above. It>deserves to be 
noted that the specimens are in pairs; and some pecu- 
liar relationship will be seen to exist between the 
members of each couplet. Repentance and faith, bap- 
tism and imposition of hands, the resurrection and the 
judgment, are kindred topics. The commentators 
generally remark of these specifications, that the doc- 
trines concerned in the acts mentioned, and not the 
acts themselves, are intended by the Apostle. This 
certainly applies to the last four, with all of which 
διδαχῆς may be construed. In the first two there 
seems to be something more actual. ‘The spiritual dis- 
cernment described in 5: 14, implies a high degree of 
grace as well as knowledge. Spiritual knowledge 
and grace are inseparably connected (“ Whosoever be- 
lieveth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God,” 1 John 


HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. V. 2. 199 


5:1). They are both included in τελεεότητα, though 
knowledge is more prominent. And in the following 
context, the idea of the evercise of the actual graces or 
their opposites, certainly prevails, rather than that of 
a mere comprehension of their doctrine. 

μετανοέας ἀπὸ νεκρῶν ἔργων, καί, x.t.4. The re 
pentance and faith, therefore, are to be exercised, as 
well as understood, in order to their becoming a part 
of the ϑεμέλεον. The words here indisputably de- 
scribe saving faith, and evangelical repentance. Two 
meanings are assigned by the different commentators 
to vexoay ἔργων ; that the acts of the impenitent man 
are so called because they proceed from the spiritually 
dead, or because they terminate in death. Either or 
both of these ideas may be adopted. 

V.2. Saaxreoporv. This word only occurs here, 
and in Mark 7: 4, 8 and Hebr. 9:10. In the last 
three places it describes the Jewish baptisms or wash- 
ings of vessels, &c. In Josephus’ Jewish Antigq. L. 18. 
6. 5. $2, it is used of John’s baptism. (The usual word 
in the New Test. is βάπτισμα, βαπτεσμάώτων.) But 
this is no sufficient reason for denying its applicability 
here to Christian baptism, as is done by Schleusner. 
For the context here almost demands this meaning; 
since, as Stuart well observes, it would be hard to see 
what Jewish ablutions have to do with the rudiments 
of Christian character. And against this meaning 
there is nothing in the word itself. While a reference 
to Christian baptism cannot be excluded, the Jewish 
and John’s baptisms are most probably to be also in- 


200 HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. V. 2. 


cluded; for the discrimination of the two latter is 
necessary to the understanding of the former. Hence, 
most probably, the plural is used, and the apposite 
adjunct, δεδαχῆς : the rationale of these different bap- 
tisms being, as we may readily suppose, elementary in 
the primitive Church. Others explain the use of the 
plural here, as one of the frequent instances of the 
plural for the singular. Thus, in Hebrew, we have 
ὩΣ, ov; and in John 1:13, of οὐκ ἐξ aiuaror... 
ἐγεννήϑησαν. See Winer’s Id. New Test. $27. 2. ὃ. 
δεδαχὴς belongs doubtless to βϑαπείσμεων. Some 
interpreters separate it, and translate it “elementary 
instruction,” so as to read thus: “ Not laying again 
the foundation ... of baptisms, doctrine, and imposi- 
tion of hands,” ἄς. But the word thus explained is 
too general to suit the design of the author in this 
place; which is, to specify particularly the first rudi- 
ments of Christianity which he wished his readers to 
have mastered, so as to pass on to others. The three, 
baptism, instruction, and laying on of hands, may how- 
ever be taken separately, thus forming a triplet, which 
would correspond with the other pairs of specifications. 
But, for the reason given, the first construction is pre- 
ferable. This subject of Christian baptism, like the 
graces of faith and repentance, must be understood, 
and the duty involved performed by the intelligent 
convert, at the outset of his Christian life. It is there- 
- fore called properly one of the ‘ first elements.’ 
ἐπεϑέσεώς τὲ χειρῶν. This form had long been 
known among the Jews, in pronouncing blessings 


HEBREWS, OHAP. VI. Vv. 8. 201 


(Gen. 48: 14), and was still practised with this mean- 
ing in New Testament times. (See Matt.19:13). It 
was also the form in ordinations, as may be seen in 
many familiar instances: and the apostles, at or after 
baptism, frequently, though not uniformly, imposed 
hands to communicate supernatural gifts. This is most 
probably the thing intended here; and it was sup- 
posed that the disciples would early become familiar 
with it, because some Christians usually received these 
supernatural gifts, at the first planting of the churches 
by the apostles. 

zolucaros αἰωνίου. 'These words doubtless refer to 
the general judgment; and it is called eternal, because 
it is held in that world, and its results are everlasting. 
The doctrine of the resurrection of the body is here too 
plainly indicated by ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν, to need any 
remark. We have in these two verses an interesting 
indication of the topics which formed the first instruc- 
tions of the primitive preachers. A change of cir- 
cumstances has doubtless rendered some of them less 
important as first elements than they then were. “ 

V. ὃ. τοῦτο ποιήσομεν. The Apostle speaks in 
the first person, by a courteous χοεγνωσές: in order 
both to convey an encouraging assurance of his confi- 
dence in his readers’ future improvement, and to ex- 
press a gentle exhortation. τοῦτο refers to what was 
enjoined in the first verse: “We will go on to reAsco- 
tyra. Upon the foundation of faith and repentance, 
and the other great, elementary doctrines and duties 
mentioned, we will go on to build complete Christian 


202 HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. V. 4. 


character, ‘perfecting knowledge and grace, in the 
fear of the Lord.” Hence the relevaney of— 

ἑώνπερ ἐπετρέπῃ ὃ ϑεός. Tt was well to connect 
with the expression of such a purpose, an acknowledg- 
ment of dependence on divine help; both to remind 
them of the necessity of seeking it, and to introduce 
the awful truth by which the purpose is enforced. 
Calvin well says, “Ita fulminat Apostolus, ne Judeei, 
dum sibi nimium indulgent in sua oscitantia, Dei 
gratia illudant: acsi diceret; non esse hice procrasti- 
nandum, quia non semper futura sit propediendi oppor- 
tunitas. Neque enim hoc in manu hominis positum, ut 
quoties libuerit, a carceribus ad metam transiliat; sed 
singulare esse Dei donum cursus nostri confectionem.” 

V. 4. ᾿Αδύνατον yao. We have here the first 
reason (introduced by γὰρ) for compliance with the 
exhortation just addressed to his readers. The con- 
junctive particle points back to τοῦτο ποιήσομεν. 
(See Analysis.) 

᾿Αδύνατον is used in verse 18th of this chapter (ἐν 
οἷς ἀδύνατον ψεύσασίϑαε ϑεόνν, i 10: 4 below C4dv- 
γαάτον yao “ima ταύρων καὶ τράγων ἀφαιρεῖν auce- 
τέως), and in 11:6 (χωρὶς δὲ πίστεως ἀδύνατον 
εὐαρεστῆσαι), in the sense of absolute impossibility. 
It has the same sense in Matt. 19: 26 (Παρὰ ἀνϑρώ- 
now τοῦτο ἀδύνατόν ἐστιν, and in the parallel pas- 
sages, Mark 10:27 and Luke 18:27. A similar 
instance of its use may be found in Rom. 8: 3. In all 
these cases it is neuter, and predicative; and is em- 
ployed in an impersonal phrase. When used as a 


HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. V. 4. 203 


qualificative adjective, it denotes impotency, physical 
or spiritual, and assumes, like any other adjective, the 
‘accidents’ of its noun. Thus in Acts 14: 8 we read, 
Καί τις ἀνὴρ ἐν Avoreos ἀδύνατος τοῖς ποσὶν éxa- 
ϑητο. In Rom. 15: 1, we find it used im the sense of 
spiritual weakness, Ὀφεέλομεν δὲ ἡμεῖς οἱ δυνατοὶ τὰ 
ἀσϑενήματα τῶν ἀδυνάτων βαστάζειν. ‘There is no 
reason for departing, in the place under discussion, 
from the usage first stated. The reason of the impos- 
sibility must always be sought in the nature of the 
ease. Here it is found, not in any natural contradic- 
tion and impossibility, such as that ‘a part cannot be 
equal to its whole, but in the unchangeable ordination 
of God as to the dispensation of His grace. He can re- 
store from any apostacy, or subdue any obstinacy ; but 
the Apostle teaches us that there are defections which 
God will not heal, but leave to terminate in merited 
perdition. The truth here taught is similar to that 
more generally stated in the following passages: Gen. 
6: 3, “ And the Lord said, My Spirit shall not always 
strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days 
shall be a hundred and twenty years.” Prov. 29:1, 
“He that being often reproved, hardeneth his neck, 
shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without rem- 
edy.” Matt. 12: 81, “Wherefore I say unto you, All 
manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto 
men; but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall 
not be forgiven unto men.” 1 John 5: 16, “ There is 
asin unto death; Ido not say that he (the sinner’s 
Christian brother) shall pray for it.”. And Hebr. 10: 


204 HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. V. 4. 


26, 27, “For if we sin wilfully after that we have re- 
ceived the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no 
more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for 
of judgment, which shall devour the adversaries.” A 
long and peculiarly stubborn resistance of known duty, 
may cause God to fix a righteous limit to his forbear- 
ance, beyond which no saving influence of his grace 
will come to the sinner; and though his life be still 
continued beyond it, he is only awaiting a sure and 
sudden destruction, either in a state of fatal indiffer- 
ence, or of guilty but obdurate dread. And while a 
peculiarly stubborn perseverance in the customary 
sins of partially convinced unbelievers may bring 
men, some sooner, others later, to this fatal limit, 
there is one sin (Matt. 12: 31, 1 John 5:16), which 
at once, whenever it is committed, places the sinner 
beyond it. 

φωτεσϑέντας, “Enlightened.” This word is used, 
in the New Testament, of moral and spiritual illumi- 
nation. In some cases it seems to intend a saving illu- 
mination ; but in some it does not. Of the former we 
have examples probably in Hebr. 10: 32 (τὰς πρότε- 
gov ἡμέρας, ἐν ais φωτεσϑέντες πολλὴν ἄϑλησεν ὕπε- 
μείνατε πεϑημάτωνν, and Eph. 1:18 (πεφωτεσμένους 
τοὺς ὀφϑαλμοὺς τῆς καρδίας ὑμῶν, κιτ.λ.).. Of an 
illumination not saving, expressed by this word, we 
have examples in John 1: 9 (Ἣν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληϑενόν, 
ὃ φωτίζεε πάντα ἄνϑρωπον, ἐρχόμενον sig τὸν κό- 
σμονν, and Eph. ὃ : 9 (“To me, who am less than the 
least of all saints, was this grace given, to preach, &e. 


HEBREWS, OHAP. VI. V. 4: 205 


11. HAL φωτίσαε πάντας, τίς ἡ οἰκονομία τοῦ μυστη- 
etou,” #.7..). 

γευσωμένους, “ Experienced.” The same verb is 
used 2: 9 above, where it is said that Christ “tasted 
death for every man.” There, as here, it is construed 
with the genitive; in John 2: 9 with the accusative: 
ἐγεύσατο ὁ ἀρχειτρίκλενος TO ὕδωρ οἶνον γεγενημένον. 
The two constructions seem to offer no difference in 
sense. 

τῆς δωρεῶς τῆς ἐπουρανίου. Some commentators 
think that this heavenly gift is Christ, and cite his 
words to the Samaritan woman, John 4: 10, Ed 70sec 
τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ϑεοῦ, καὶ τίς ἐστεν ὁ λέγων Cot, x... 
Others interpret it as meaning the Holy Spirit, espe- 
cially in his extraordinary or miraculous influences ; 
and cite the words of Peter to Simon Magus, Acts 8: 
20, “Thy money perish with thee, ore τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ 
ϑεοῦ ἐνόμεσας δεὰ χρημάτων “τασϑαωι. Stuart in- 
terprets the phrase as meaning “the blessings or privi- 
leges of the gospel,” “the privileges or means of grace 
which the new religion afforded ;” and compares, as a 
similar expression, the words κλήσεως ἐπουρανίου μέ- 
rozot, in 3:1 above. Calvin interprets it as ‘Evan- 
geli cognitionem,’ which is, probably, nearly correct. 

μετόχους γενηθέντας πνεύματος ἁγίου. The in- 
troduction of these words would seem to refute the 
second of the interpretations offered above for δωρεῶς 
τῆς ἐπουρανίου. The manifold operations of the Holy 
Spirit are most probably here meant, ordinary (so to 
speak) and miraculous. Stuart limits the meaning to 


200 HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. V. 5. 


the last. These influences, whether we suppose the 
ordinary or extraordinary, are not necessarily saving. 
We have already seen, from Gen. 6: 3, that the Holy 
Spirit strove with the condemned generation which 
was destroyed by the flood; Balaam was a truly in- 
spired prophet; Christ represents some as saying to 
him, in the judgment, “ Lord, Lord, have we not pro- 
phesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out 
devils ? and in thy name done many wonderful works ? 
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you; 
depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Matt. 7: 22, 
23. One may “speak with the tongues of men and 
of angels, and not have charity.” 1 Cor. 13: 1. 

V. ὅ. καλὸν γευσαμένους ϑεοῦ ῥῆμα. Stuart, 
Bloomfield, and others, understand by-the good word 
of God here, especially the promises; but there seems 
to be no sufficient reason for such a limitation. The 
figure of tasting the word of God is not uncommon in 
the Scriptures, to represent the reception of it. Matt. 
4: 4 (quoted from Deut. 8: 3), contains a similar ex- 
pression: “ Man shall not live by bread alone, but by 
every word which proceedeth out of the mouth of 
God.” Here, again, we have not a necessarily saving 
trait. Many are spoken of in the Scriptures, as 7eceiv- 
ing God’s word, who were no true saints. Matt. 18: 
20, 21, “ But he that received the seed into stony 
places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon 
with joy receiveth it, yet hath he not root in himself,” 
&e. The same expression is found, in substance, in 
the parallel passage, Mark 4: 16, 17; and in Luke 4: 


HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. v. 6. 207 


22 we read that when Christ expounded, in Nazareth, 
Isaiah’s prophecy concerning Him, “all bare him wit- 
ness, and wondered at the gracious words that pro- 
ceeded out of his mouth.” 

δυνώμεις μέλλοντος αἰῶνος. Some interpret this 
expression (‘the powers of the world to come’) of 
‘miracles, and miraculous powers. Others, among 
whom are Kuinoél and Bretschneider, of ‘the riches 
or consolations of the gospel dispensation.’ Stuart ex- 
plains it, taking μέλλοντος aiwyiov In its sense of ‘the 
later dispensation,’ as including all gracious gospel in- 
fluences which are not set down in the foregoing par- 
ticulars. Bloomfield, Scott, and others, take it for the 
powerful motives and supports drawn from a future 
state. The first interpretation is the one most accord- 
ant with the common use of δυνάμεις, and of the 
phrase μέλλοντος αἰῶνος. The reader is referred, for 
proof of this, to what is said on 2: 4,5 above, and 
9:26 below. Itis there shown that δυνώμες, in the 
singular, must usually be taken to mean miraculous 
power, and in the plural miracles; and that αἰῶν ὁ 
μέλλων, and kindred phrases, must most probably be 
taken as equivalent to the Jewish expression for the 
coming messianic economy 837 O3y. 

V.6. zat. This connective seems here to have 
the force of “and yet.” In the remarks on 8: 19 
above, it was pointed out that xc, in addition to its 
simple copulative force, often carries an additional 
meaning, derived from the connexion of thought. 

παραπεσόντας, ‘Falling away. This word is used 


208 HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. Vv. 6. 


only here in the New Test. The Septuagint use it for 
229, in Ezek 18: 24, which is rendered in our English 
version, “But when the righteous turneth away from 
his righteousness, and committeth iniquity,” &e. In 
the passage under discussion, it denotes apostatizing 
from the Christian faith and walk. The correspond- 
ing expression in that passage, 10: 26-29 below, which 
is so analogous to this, is, “If we sin wilfully after we 
have received the knowledge of the truth,” &e. Cal- 
vin remarks, “ Atque ut hoe melius intelligatur, sub- 
audienda est antithesis inter Dei gratias quas recensuit, 
et hunc lapsum. Labitur enim qui deficit a verbo 
Domini, qui lucem ejus extinguit, qui se gustu doni 
ccelestis privat, qui participationem Spiritus deserit. 
Hoe autem est in totum Deo renuntiare. Nune vide- 
mus quosnam a spe venize excludat, nempe Apostolas 
qui se a Christi Evangelio quod prius amplexi erant, et 
a Dei gratia alienirunt; quod nemini contingit, quin 
peccet in Spiritum Sanctum.” 

πάλεν qualifies ὠναχαινέζεεν. The primary and 
local meaning is “back.” The derived, temporal 
meaning is “again.” It here properly implies resto- 
ration to a former state, and may be rendered by a 
combination of the two meanings, “ back again.” 

avaxaviley presents the meaning “renew,” or 
‘restore, with the idea of upward motion tropically 
implied by ἀνώ, because a backsliding or apostacy is, 
by a very natural figure, conceived of as a sinking 
downward, and the restoration from it as a raising up. 
This is the only place where the verb occurs in the 


HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. ΟὟ. 6. 209 


New Test. The Septuagint employ it as a translation 
for tn in Ps. 104: 30 (‘Thou (God) renewest the 
face of the earth’), and for tynnm in Ps. 103: 5 (‘so 
that thy youth is renewed like the eagle’s’). This in- 
finitive here is properly governed by “40vvaroy as its 
subject (not object; see Kihner’s Gr. Gram. $306. 
1. c.), “To renew unto repentance those who, &.... 
is impossible.” 

εἰς with the accusative is properly used of the state 
into which any thing passes; the meaning assigned it 
in this place by Winer, Id. New Test. $53. a. (4). p. 
317. It is used tropically of any object or aim. Here 
it means, ‘into a state of repentance.’ 

μετάνοιαν rust be here understood of genwine 
gospa repentance, according to its uniform usage in 
the New Test. This usage is more fully explored in 
the comment on 12: 17 below, to which the reader is 
referred. 

ἀνασταυροῦντας 1s used only here in the New 
Test. The common word in the Scriptures, for cru- 
cify, is σταυρόω. Hence many commentators trans- 
late the compound verb here, ‘to crucify again, afresh,’ 
as our Engl. version ; taking @yc in the sense of repe- 
tation, which it often carries in compounds. But in 
classic Greek, ὠνασεαυρόω is the common word for 
‘crucify, and oreveow is used for driving stakes or 
pales. Hence many translate ὠνασταυρόω here, sim- 
ply ‘to crucify, attributing to ἄνα (as in this verb 
among the classics) the idea of the lifting up which ae- 
companied crucifixion. The first sense is preferable on 

14 


210 HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. V. 6. 


the ground of New Test. usage (though ἄνα certainly 
does not always denote repetition in composition, by 
any means), and it coheres best with the sense. The 
Apostle’s meaning is not, as Bretschneider represents, 
“that they make it necessary, in order to the atone- 
ment of their sins, that Christ should be recrucified ;” 
but they virtually incur the guilt which would attach 
to his crucifixion a second time; since they act under 
the same feelings as those who first did it—unbelief, re- 
jection, contempt, and enmity to his righteous author- 
ity and holiness. Hence the pronoun ἑαυτοῖς is intro- 
duced. We prefer to take this as a dative incommodi ; 
a construction which is explained in Winer’s Id. New 
Test. $31: 1. A strong example of this construction 
may be seen in Matt. 23: 81, στε μαρτυρεῖτε ἑαυτοῖς 
(ye witness against yourselves), Ore viol ἔστε τῶν 
φονευσάντων τοὺς προφήτας, “They crucify again, to 
their own condemnation, the Son of God.” Calvin 
with less accuracy says, ‘Quantum in se est.’ 
παραδεεγματίζοντας means first ‘to make an ex- 
ample of, and then, ‘to expose to ignominy.’ In the 
New Test. it is used only here and in Matt. 1: 19, 
where it is said that Joseph, being a just man, was not 
willing to make Mary a public example (aagadseyua- 
ricac) for her seeming infidelity. The Septuagint 
employ it as a translation for 2>p'5 in Numb. 25: 4. 
After the sin of the people with the daughters of 
Moab, “The Lord said unto Moses, Take all the heads 
(leaders) of the people, and hang them up before the 
Lord against the sun.” It is used also in Jer. 13: 22 


HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. v. 6. 211 


and Ezek. 28: 17, in the sense of ‘exposure to shame.’ 
This is undoubtedly its meaning here. The Apostle 
expresses intensely the implied meaning of the act the 
Hebrew Christians would commit in deserting Christ. 
It would imply that they had found him an impostor, 
and now left him, as such, to all the popular scorn 
which so vast and impious a cheat deserved. 

The Apostle here incites his readers to onward 
progress in the divine life, by admonishing them of 
the ordination of God in the sovereign dispensation of 
His grace, by which He leaves those who apostatize 
from certain distinguished privileges and influences, to 
perish in their sins. On this Calvin remarks: “Ta- 
metsi durum hoe videtur, non est tamen cur Deum 
insimulet crudelitatis quisquis talem dat defectionis 
sue penam. Neque hoc pugnat cum aliis locis Scrip- 
ture, ubi Dei miseracordia peccatoribus offertur simul- 
atque ingemuerint. (Ezek. 18:27.) Ihc enim requi- 
ritur pcenitentia, qua nunquam vere tangitur qui 
Evangelio prorsus semel defecit. Tales enim Dei 
Spiritu privati, ut mereatur, conjiciuntur in sensum 
reprobum ut Diabolo mancipati ruere in suum exitium 
pergant. ... Denique admonet Apostolus, pcenitentiam 
non esse in hominis arbitrio, sed iis a Deo solis dari, 
qui non prorsus exciderint a fide.... Rursum erucifi- 
gentes sibi. Hoe quoque addit, ut Dei severitatem 
vindicet ab hominum calumniis. Est enim indignum 
ut Deus ignoscendo defectoribus Filium suum ludibris 
exponat.” The degree of these spiritual advantages 1s 
not determined; God only knows, as He has the right 


212 HEBREWS, OHAP. VI. V. 6. 


to judge, how to apply the rule. We are persuaded 
that those expositors who endeavour to fix and clear 
up the exact meaning of all the conditions specified in 
vy. 4-6, misapprehend the design of the Holy Spirit. 
He has not intended to define exactly the line beyond 
which we may not go without finally transgressing 
His forbearance, in order that the uncertainty may 
produce a more salutary fear; while he has given us 
abundant warning of such a danger, and of the direc- 
tion in which it lies. The general scope of the in- 
struction here is this: “Go on unto perfection, lest 
God, provoked by your sloth, leave you, justly, to fall 
away and perish.” To professors, not yet fully assured 
of their hope, it ought, as the Apostle designed it, to 
be peculiarly stimulating. That such-was the exact 
condition prevalent among the persons addressed, is 
implied in v. 11: “ We desire that every one of you 
do show the same diligence to the full assurance of 
hope unto the end.” The following verses, 7, 8, serve 
to illustrate the warning. 

Many infer, from vv. 4—6, that true Christians may 
fall from the grace of God, and perish in their sins. 
On this we submit the following observations. 

I. Conceede that true Christians are meant, and 
that the passage does teach that they may fall away 
and perish; it is much more certainly taught, then, 
that they cannot be brought again to repentance. To 





render ‘4dvveroy “very difficult,” is to violate usage, 
and dilute the sense too much for the context. The 
qualifying phrase of v. 3, ‘If God permit,’ supposes a 


HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. V. 6. 213 


contingency in which God would withdraw His grace, 
and further_ spiritual progress become consequently 
impossible. ‘The illustrations in vv. 1, 8, are of the 
same import. It would follow then, on this interpre- 
tation, that such are the methods of God’s grace, that 
lapsed Christians cannot be restored. This doctrine is 
more t than the Arminian i is willing to believe. It can 
only nly be Ὁ avoided, by supposing that the spiritual ad- 
vantages mentioned were peculiar, perhaps even to the 
apostolic age; and then by drawing the infer ence 
that if such might fi ill, muc much_more might ordinary 
Christians now, to ) whom, it might be said, the impos- 
sibility of restoration would not at least necessarily 
apply, on that supposition. We deny that this suppo- 
sition is capable of proof from the terms employed. 
There is amongst the commentators, both Arminian 
and Calvinistic, the greatest diversity of opinion as to 
their real import, when severally considered. 

II. Allowing to this supposition, however, all 
that it can justly claim, and still conceding that true 
Christians are described in the passage, we deny 
that the admonition which it contains necessarily 
supposes that true Christians could in fact finally fall 
away. 

1. It is not credible, in the first place, that the 
Apostle would teach contrary to the doctrine of the 
Saviour, of the other inspired writers, and of himself; 
of himself even in this Epistle. The well-known words 
of the Saviour in John 10: 27-29, we hold can never 
be tortured into any other sense, than that His true 





i 
! 
q 
ἢ 
| 
' 


«πων ον, 


214 HEBREWS, OHAP. VI. V. 6. 


sheep are infallibly preserved from total and final 
apostacy: “My sheep hear my voice, and I know 
them, and they follow me: And I give unto them 
eternal life ; and they shall never perish, neither shall 
any pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which 
gave them me, is greater than all; and none is able to 
pluck them out of my Father’s hand.” It is the doce- 
trine also of the other inspired writers, in both dispen- 
sations. (Ps. 37: 28, 24), “The steps of the good man 
are ordered by the Lord, and he delighteth in his way. 
Though he fall, he shall not be utterly cast down ; for 
the Lord upholdeth him with his hand.” (1 John 2: 
19), “They went out from us, but they were not of 
us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt 
have continued with us; but they went out that they 
might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” 
It is the doctrine of Paul himself (Rom. 14: 4), “ Yea, 
he shall be holden up; for God is able to make him 
stand.” See also the well-known passage in Rom. 8: 
35-389. It is Paul’s doctrine even in this Epistle: 3: 6, 
“Whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence,” 
&e.; where it is implied that perseverance to the end 
is the test which decides whether. we were. true.mem- 
bers of the household of faith. ‘The same idea is re- 
peated in 3: 14, and implied in 10: 39. 

2. The affirmation that if they fell away, they 
could not be renewed unto repentance, does not neces- 
sarily teach that they could fall away. It is the doe- 
trine of both the Old and New Testaments, that if a 
man keep the law, he shall live by it. (Levit. 18: 5, 


HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. v. 6. 215 


Gal. 3:12.) It is equally the doctrine of both, that 
no man can or will keep it and live. 

3. God’s purposes embrace the means of their 
accomplishment, and establish the efficiency of those 
means. And though both purposes and means are, in 
the divine arrangement, certain, they are in themselves 
(so to speak) contingent; and the end is, by the ap- 
pointment of God, dependent on the means. Language 
may properly be used of them in accordance with this 
mutual dependence of means and end. For example: 
in Paul’s voyage to Rome, it was revealed to him that 
the lives of all the men in the ship should be saved, 
but the ship lost. The result was certain in the divine 
purpose and foreknowledge; the means to effect this 
result were equally determined in the divine mind ; 
yet when the crew were about to flee out of the ship, 
Paul said to the centurion and the soldiers, “ Except 
these abide in the ship, ye cannot be saved.” In them- 
selves, humanly considered, the crew might flee out, 
and consequently, the centurion, soldiers, and prison- 
ers be lost; but as a matter of fact, it was certain, in 
the ordination of God, that they would remain; as 
much so as that the whole company would conse- 
quently be saved. Surely Paul, by his contingent ex- 
hortation, meant to teach nothing to the contrary; 
and if not there, why does he necessarily imply any 
thing here contrary to the certain perseverance of true 
believers? This object is secured by God, in part at 
least, through the means of motives. Believers are 
not kept in a state of grace by irrational constraint, 


216 HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. Vv. 6. 


as a wild beast is chained to a post, or confined ina 
cage; but God makes use of hope and fear, a sense 
of self-interest, and conscience of duty, with them, as 
rational beings, to continue freely and spontaneously 
in his service. Now the addressing of this hope and 
fear to their minds implies, of course, that God shall 
speak to a true Christian as though there were danger 
of Ais apostatizing, and falling into perdition. Yet it 
is the purpose of God to employ the fear of that dan- 
ger (which, in the nature of things, and apart from 
the divine determination, is actual), certainly to cause 
his continuance in well doing. God’s addressing warn- 
ings of apostacy to believers, as though they might 
fall, does not therefore imply that any such actually 
will fall. Now, the persons here addressed by the 
Apostle were professors of a Christian hope. They 
entertained at least some hope of their own gracious 
state; many of them, in the judgment of charity, 
might be presumed to be true saints. It was 
proper, therefore, that when spoken to collectively, 
they should be addressed as believers. Yet, if any 
among them were self-deceived, as was every way 
probable, it was possible (both according to human 
nature and the divine ordinations), that they might 
apostatize and be lost; and therefore it was reason- 
able to warn them of this danger, upon the principles 
of the Calvinist. 

ΠῚ. But it is not only incapable of proof that true 
Christians are here contemplated as actually capable 
of falling (though we admit that all classes are em- 





HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. Vv. 6. 217 


braced in the admonition), but there are strong reasons 
to the contrary. 

1. There is nothing said of their being regener- 
ated, justified, sanctified. The terms employed are of 
general and undefined import, implying high privi- 
leges, it is true, but nothing necessarily or certainly 
that is saving. The only phrase apparently to the 
contrary is, ‘to renew them again to repentance. As 
the repentance here named is indisputably true, evan- 
gelical repentance, the πώλεν seems to some to imply 
that persons in a truly penitent state are here intend- 
ed. But the phrase ‘to renew them again’ finds a 
sufficient explanation in their former profession and 
acknowledged standing; while the latter clause, ‘to 
renew them’ “wnto repentance,” designates a limit to 
which their renewal cannot reach; but it does not 
assert that they had ever attained to that limit. 

2. The illustrations of vv. 7, 8, seem to distinguish 
very clearly between those who, being in a gracious 
state, enjoy the favour and blessing of God, and those 
who, being spiritually destitute and barren, are cast 
off and destroyed. The unfruitful ground there cer- 
tainly represents and corresponds to the apostatizers 
here, against whom the admonition is directed. But 
they are strange Christians, who bring forth only 
“thorns and briers!” 

3. The persuasion which the Apostle expresses 
concerning the Christian state of his readers, in con- 
nexion with the grounds of it, bears strongly the same 
way. “ Better things” distinguished them in his esti- 


218 HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. Vv. 6. 


mation, ‘even things belonging unto salvation.” The 
grounds of this good opinion are past and present good 
works, which God would remember, vv. 9, 10. 

It may not be said that, if the persons in ques- 
tion were only formalists and hypocrites, they ought 
to fall away; the Apostle exhorts them all, profes- 
sors of Christ as they were, to hold on and press 
forward. 

To conclude: We have only to consider the pres- 
ent actual state of things in any of the churches, to see 
the propriety of the exhortation before us. Many are 
deceived, few are assured; all have partially corrupt 
hearts, and are surrounded on every side by spiritual 
enemies and adverse influences. Such was the state 
of the Hebrew Christians. (See Introduction, p. 5, 
and compare v.11, below.) Well then may the Apos- 
tle exhort them collectively to lay off sloth, and go on 
to perfect knowledge and holiness in the fear of the 
Lord; admonishing them of this fearful principle in 
the administration of His grace, by which apostacy © 
from certain distinguished privileges seals the destiny 
of the soul forever. Many, like Calvin, think that this 
danger is only imminent over those who commit the 
sin against the Holy Ghost; and this sin many con- 
fine to the apostolic age. But we profess not to know 
certainly what the sin against the Holy Ghost is, any 
more than we can define the precise degree of spiritual 
illumination, gifts, and influences, from which a man 
may not apostatize without fixing his eternal doom. 
Besides: the apostle John speaks (1 John 5: 16) of 


HEBREWS, ΘΈΑ Ῥ. Ἄς: v. 7. 219 


‘a sin unto death, which is no more understood; and 
every sinner who perseveres in impenitence, fills up his 
measure by death, if indeed many do not long before 
reach the point where God says of them, ‘ My spirit 
shall not always strive ;’ ‘Ephraim is joined to idols, 
let him alone.” From a comparison of these passages 
with Prov. 29: 1, “He that being often reproved, hard- 
eneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that 
without remedy,” it seems that there are other ways 
of coming into a state of eternal, inexorable condemna- 
tion, this side of death, besides that of ‘sinning against 
the Holy Ghost.’ We can therefore only say, in the 
spirit of the Apostle’s admonition, ‘ Let us not be slug- 
gards, but fear.’ We may pass the fatal limit before 
we or any one isaware. Let us improve our privileges 
of grace, lest God withhold his aid, and leave us to 
perdition. 

V.%. Γῆ yao ἡ πιοῦσα, κιτ.λ. To resume the 
Commentary: the verses 7, 8 are intended to illus- 
trate, and thereby confirm the solemn admonition 
which we have considered. Hence γὰρ introduces 
them, with the sense of “for,” or “for instance.” Here 
the fruitful ground represents those hearers who re- 
ceive the word into good hearts; hearts made good, 
of course, by the grace of God. Upon these his grace 
and blessing abide. The unfruitful ground represents 
the class against whose sin and doom the Apostle is 
admonishing his readers, viz. those who, however fair 
their professions, and however highly favoured with 
privileges, bring forth nothing but dead works, and, 


220 HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. v. 7. 


being rejected of God, are overtaken with a destruc- 
tion swift and terrible, like that of fire. 

βοτώνην is used here only in the New Testament. 
But the sense of the verse sufficiently defines it to be 
any kind of vegetation εὔϑετον γεώργοις. The He- 
brew word, 22, exhibits a similar use. In classic 
Greek usage of the word, ‘bread grains’ are excluded ; 
and it expresses plants other than the ‘cereals,’ 

δὲ οὖς is rendered in the English version, ‘ by 
whom ;’ which is an unwarrantable departure from 
the regular usage of διὰ with the accusative. We 
render it, ‘on whose account, ‘for whom, it is tilled. 
The sense is more natural and easy, especially when 
we remember that, in the author’s day, the farm-labour 
was generally done by other hands than those of the 
proprietor himself, for whom the crops were reared ; 
and when so fair a sense is obtained, we are not author- 
ized to obtain a different one, by departing from the 
usual force of the construction. 

μεταλαμβάνεε εὐλογίας, z.1.4., ‘Participates in 
blessing from God. ‘The figure must not be too liter- 
ally pressed. Good ground, under God’s providential 
favours, yields abundantly ; it is cherished by the hus- 
bandman, and the smiles of God seem to rest upon it. 
Here is sufficient ground for the figurative application, 
in the mind of a pious Hebrew, which was both agri- 
cultural, and devout, in all its turns of thought. With 
the diversified and artificial occupations by which hu- 
man sustenance is now earned, and the less reverential 
and simple spirit which characterizes the civilized races 


ας δ οὖν. 


HEBREWS, OHAP. VI. Ve 8. 221 


of men, we at our day can scarcely appreciate that 
affectionate and direct sense of the divine hand in his 
harvests, which was felt by the ancient Hebrew farmer. 
The Apostle’s allusion here is doubtless to this simple 
and devout feeling of the fathers, as it is expressed, for 
instance, by Isaac, Gen. 27: 27, “See; the smell of 
my son is as the smell of a field which the Lord hath 
blessed.” 

V. 8. ἐχφέρουσα δὲ ἀκάώνϑας καὶ τριβόλους, 
‘Thorns and {Π|50165.5 These are fit emblems, as con- 
trasted with valuable and edible plants, of the dead 
works of souls still spiritually dead. The blossoms 
may be fair, and even the fruit may seem attractive 
externally ; but they are, so to speak, God’s curse: 
upon the earth for man’s sin. Thus (Gen. 3: 18) we 
read that a part of the curse pronounced upon the 
ground for Adam’s sake, was, ‘Thorns also, and this- 
tles, shall it bring forth to thee.” So apostates bring 
forth, in the sight of God, only evil fruit: the ‘tree is . 
evil.” In this illustration which the author gives of 
his intent, we have strong evidence that the character 
above described was not that of a truly regenerate 
man. While the character opposite to it yields good 
fruit, this produces just that spurious fruit which the 
Saviour had used to illustrate the works of the self- 
deceiver or hypocrite: ‘Men do not gather grapes of 
thorns, or figs of thistles. How strange is such fruit 
from a tree at one time good! 

ἀδόκεμος is applied in the classics to coin assayed 
and rejected. Its accurate meaning seems to be, “ that 


222 HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. V. 8. 


cannot bear the test,” “that fails of passing muster,” 
and hence, “ rejected.” This seems to be the sense in 
all the passages of the New Test. except, perhaps, Titus 
1:16 (zal πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαϑὸν ἀδόκιμοι). Refer 
to Rom. 1: 28, 1 Coy. 9: 97, 2 Cor. 13: 5, 6, 2 Tim. 
3:8. The expression, ‘nigh unto cursing, is the con- 
trast to that in the parallel part of the illustration, 
‘receiveth blessing from God’ 

ἧς τὸ τέλος εἰς καῦσεν. This expression is gener- 
ally explained as a Hebraism, like the phrase "92> 775, 
which we find for instance in Is. 44: 15, translated by 
the Septuagint, 7 εἰς καῦσεν. Here, again, we must 
not press the figure unnaturally. The ground must 
be taken for the vegetation which grows upon it. 
Unfruitful, thorny ground, which, in- spite of good 
seed, careful cultivation, and seasonable showers, bears 
only noxious weeds, is cast out of tillage, and burned 
over, in order to destroy the pests it has produced. 
Thus it seems not to have the blessing of Providence 
or the favour of man attached to it. Thus will God 
treat those men, who, after enjoying abundant privi- 
leges, and showing at first plausible but delusive ap- 
pearances of holiness, finally yield the fruits of a sinful 
life. They are given up to sin, and finally, at some 
unexpected hour, utterly destroyed; in order that their 
evil fruits may not be propagated farther. 





, ~ << ~ > , ‘ , 
9 Texsiousda δὲ περὶ ὑμῶν, ἀγαπητοί, τὰ κρείττο- 
> U , > co ~ 
va καὶ ἐχόμενα σωτηρίας, εἰ καὶ οὕτω λαλοῦμεν. 
‘ oO Ll , s - 
10 Οὐ γὰρ adixos ὃ ϑεός, ἐπελαϑέσϑαε. τοῦ ἔργου 


HEBREWS, OHAP. VI. Vv. 9. 223 


~ ~ U ~ 3 r re > Te 
ὑμῶν καὶ [τοῦ κόπου] τῆς ἀγάπης, ys ἐνεδείξασϑε 
” ~ r a , 

εἰς TO ὄνομ αὐτοῦ, δεακονησαντὲς τοῖς ἁγίοις καὶ 
~ 5) ~ , “ ἐδ ~ 
11 διακονοῦντες. Κπεϑυμοῦμεν δέ, ἕκαστον ὑμῶν 

a γ ? \ \ \ 
τὴν αὐτὴν ἐνδείκνυσϑαε σπουδὴν πρὸς τὴν πληρο- 
12 φορίαν τῆς ἐλπίδος ἄχρε τέλους " ἵνα μὴ νωϑροὶ 
φορίαν τῆς ἐλπίδος ἄχρε τέλους" ἵνα μὴ νωϑροὶ 

~ \ , 
γένησϑε, μεμηταὶ δὲ τῶν δεὰ πίστεως καὶ μακρο- 
, Li \ > , 
ϑυμίας κληρονομουντων τὰς émayyEhias. 


V.9. Ππεπείσμεθα δέ, κιτ.λ., “We persuade our- 
selves.” This phrase, as with us, often expresses the 
surest conviction. Thus, in Rom. 8: 88, “For I am 
persuaded (πέπεεσμαε yao) that neither death nor life, 
&e. shall be able to separate us from the love of God, 
which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Rom. 14: 14, 
“JT know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus (Οἶδα, 
καὶ πέπεεσμεκε), that there is nothing unclean of itself.” 
2 Tim. 1: 12, “ For I know whom I have believed, and 
am persuaded (καὶ πέπεεσμαε) that he is able to keep 
that,” &e. In other cases, the verb imports only a 
conciliatory persuasion or confidence, based on good 
grounds, as in this instance, for the encouragement of 
those respecting whom it is expressed. This seems to 
be the meaning in Rom. 15: 14 (“For I myself also 
am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are 
full of goodness,” &e.), 2 Tim. 1:5 (“the unfeigned 
faith ... which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, 
and thy mother Eunice, and I am persuaded that in 
thee also”), and in this place. We are, then, to under- 
stand here not an infallible conviction, but a strong 
persuasion, based on good reasons given in v.10. And 


224 HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. v. 10. 


the Apostle should most probably be understood as 
expressing this persuasion of the body, and not of 
particular individuals. 

κρείττονα, ‘Better things. That is, better things 
than such an apostacy and such an end. This is de- 
fined to be the meaning, by the explanatory words 
added, καὶ ἐχόμενα σωτηρίας, which is very properly 
rendered by the lexicons generally, “things that (hold 
of ) pertain to: salvation.” Things having a certain 
connexion with the salvation of the soul are obviously 
intended. : 


εἰ καὶ would literally mean, ‘if also ;’ 


hence 
‘although’ This sense attaches similarly to our Eng- 
lish expression, ‘and if? Thus: “And if J do speak 
thus, still Iam persuaded better things of you,” &e.; 
where the sense is, ‘although I speak thus.’ 

V. 10. Ov ἄδιχος ὁ ϑεός. Some interpreters 
translate this adjective, “God is not unkind,” and re- 
fer, for support, to such a supposed meaning in the 
Hebrew px, and in δέκαιος, Matt. 1:19 (Ἰωσὴφ δὲ 
ὁ ἀνὴρ αὐτῆς, δέκαεος ὧν καὶ μὴ ϑέλων «ὐτὴν maga- 
decyuarioac), md 1 John 1: 9 (Ἐὰν ὁμολογῶμεν τὰς 
ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν" πιστός ἔστε καὶ δίκαιος, ἵνα Ugh 
ἡμῖν τὰς ἁμαρτίας, &e.). But it may be doubted 
whether it has the sense of “unkind,” in either of the 
passages quoted. In the latter it is connected with 
πιστὸς (a connexion which compels us to give it its 
proper meaning of ‘just’), and the sentiment is the 
antithesis of the one before us. As God’s fidelity and 
justice are concerned, and not his mercy only, in the 


HEBREWS, CHAP. vi. v. 10. 225 


pardon of sin, since pardon has been promised on cer- 
tain conditions, and purchased by the work of Christ, 
which is imputed to us; so here, his justice, as well as 
his goodness, prompt him not to forget the affectionate 
and sincere services of his children. As sinners, we 
deserve nothing from God but wrath; but. He is faith- 
ful and righteous to fulfil His covenant with His people 
in Christ. The act of a benefactor in entering into 
engagements with his beneficiary may be wholly gra- 
tuitous; and yet, out of that act, rights may grow up 
to the beneficiary. The advantages thus acquired are 
not the less gracious, because they have become rights ; 
for they originated in free grace. Yea, the free grace 
is enhanced by this very trait, that it does not merely 
make the beneficiary a tenant by sufferance, but gen- 
erously gives a perfect right to the advantages confer- 
red. Here it is asserted of God that he τον not do the 
injustice which would be implied in the breach of his 
gracious covenant with his people. 

τοῦ κόπου. ‘These words are wanting in several 
ancient Mss. and most of the ancient versions of the 
New Test. Critics who reject the words account for 
their presence in the other numerous Mss. by suppo- 
sing that they were interpolated by some early copyist, 
from 1 Thess. 1: ὃ (ὑμῶν τοῦ ἔργου τῆς πίστεως, καὶ 
τοῦ κόπου τῆς ἀγάπης, &e.). But it is more easy and 
natural to suppose that the various reading has arisen 
from the liberty which has been taken in transcription 
to prune a supposed pleonasm, than from such an in- 
terpolation from a passage which has no particular 

15 


226 HEBREWS, CHAP. vi. v. ll. 


resemblance likely to be suggested by this place, ex- 
cept in these words alone. We therefore retain the 
words, as in the Zertus Feceptus, and render them as 
equivalent to ‘affectionate labour, in accordance with 
the use of the genitive attributive frequently seen. 
True, Christian, and not natural affection, is of course 
intended; the e@yaay of 1 Cor. 13; as is proved by the 
succeeding words, ἧς ἐνεδεέξασϑε εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ. 
Their good works were done out of ἃ love to God in 
his people. 

διακονήσαντες καὶ διακονοῦντες. These partici- 
ples, the one past and the other present, are correctly 
translated in our Engl. version, ‘in that ye have minis- 
tered to the saints and do minister” Good works in 
past time, still persevered in, were the visible ground 
of the Apostle’s good persuasion concerning them. 
They might possibly be deceptive in some cases ; but 
he was judging by the Master’s rule: “ By their fruits 
ye shall know them.” (See Matt. 7: 15-20.) 

V.11. Ἐπεϑυμοῦμεν δέ. The Apostle here far- 
ther asserts his zeal for their Christian perseverance 
and final salvation, and adds, as a more grave stimulus 
to the encouraging opinion which he had just ex- 
pressed of them, the implied truth that these promis- 
ing labours of Christian benevolence must be continued 
to the end of life, with persevering industry, in order 
to inherit the promised reward. It is as though he 
had said, “ While I thus console you under a necessary 
rebuke, and cheer you on, by admitting the encour- 
aging promise of your Christian character in this re- 


HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. v. 12. 227 


spect, let me not be understood as though you might 
now relax your zeal and repose on your rewards; 
for it is only by persevering and growing in sim- 
ilar labours to the end, that an assured hope is 
properly sustamed, and the reward finally secured. 
This is now the object of my Christian anxiety for 
you.” 
τὴν αὐτὴν σπουδήν, ‘Exhibit the same zeal,’ which 
they had shown in the labours of Christian benevo- 
lence referred to. Calvin remarks on these words, 
““Sedulo, ne déessent hominibus vestra officia, laboras- 
tis: sed non minore studio Incumbere vos decet ad 
fidei perfectionem, ut firmam plenamque ejus certitudi- 
nem approbetis Deo.” 

πρὸς τὴν πληροφορίαν τῆς ἐλπίδος. We here 


᾿) . . . . 
indicating the design, 


translate πρός, “respecting ;’ 
or end to which the will is directed. This is the sense 
assioned it in this place by Winer, Id. New Test. 
$53. ἢ. (Ὁ), ‘Exhibit the same zeal towards the fudl 
assurance of hope, ἄορ. The noun πληροφορίαν occurs 
below in 10: 22, and in 1 Thess. 1: 5, Col. 2: 2, in 
the same sense. It is not found in the classic Greek 
writers. 

ἄχρε τέλους is dependent on évdstzvvaitat, ‘ Ex- 
hibit unto the end’ (scil. of your life, or Christian 
probation). It thus makes the verb more emphatic. 

V.12. νωϑροὶ conveys prominently the idea of 
being ‘slow,’ ‘sluggard’ The Apostle would have 
them set full assurance before them, as a point sedu- 
lously to be striven after, ‘in order that (iva) they 


228 HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. v. 12. 


might not be slow, dull Christians, but imitators of 
those who inherit the promises dca πίστεως καὶ μα- 
xoodumias. 

τὰς ἐπαγγελίας is put by metonymy for ‘the thing 
promised ;’ the heavenly rest. 


CHAPTER VI. 18—VII. 10. 


ANALYSIS. 


Tue Apostle, in his exhortation to higher advances 
in the divine life, had just held up for imitation, “those 
who, through faith and patience, inherit the promises” 
(v.12). To illustrate and enforce this (vag), he se- 
lects the example of Abraham, who received the prom- 
ise confirmed by an oath (vv. 13, 14), and accordingly 
(ovrw), after patient expectation amidst trials and dis- 
couragements, obtained the fulfilment (v. 15). He 
thus, in the selection of his example, brings to view at 
the same time the certainty of the promise, as an addi- 
tional incentive to his readers. This he confirms by 
unfolding the rationale (γὰρ) (v. 16) of the divine 
transaction in the matter: Men swear by Him that is 
greater, and the oath establishes the point; wherefore 
(Ἐν ᾧ) God, in order to show to the heirs of the prom- 
ise the immutability of His will, interposed with an 
oath, that by a double assurance, in which it was im- 
possible for God to lie, we might have strong consola- 
tion, who have fled for refuge to the hope which He 
holds out (vv. 16-18) ; a hope, he adds, which we have 
as an anchor to our souls, and which embraces heay- 
enly things in the sanctuary above, whither Jesus has 
gone before us, and for us, being a High-Priest forever 
after the order of Melchisedek (vv. 19, 20). And thus 
he is brought back to his argument, at the point where 


230 CHAPS. VI, VII.—ANALYSIS. 


he left it (compare on 5: 9,10), and in terms which 
prepare the way (γὰρ) for the logical assumption of it. 

The statement (6:20) that Christ was, after the 
order of Melchisedek, a High-Priest forever, claims 
for Him a priesthood superior to the Levitical. This 
superiority he proceeds to illustrate and establish in 
ch. 7, first, by explaining Melchisedek’s typical priest- 
hood, and comparing it with that of Aaron (vv. 1-10). 
The connexion may perhaps be better exhibited thus: 
“Jesus is High-Priest forever after the order of Mel- 
chisedek (6: 20); for this Melchisedek, king of Salem, 
a priest of the most high God (who met Abraham re- 
turning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed 
him, and whose name being interpreted is king of 
righteousness, and king of peace), being without father, 
mother, beginning of days or end of life, because a 
type of Christ, abideth a priest forever.” (7: 1-38). 
The Apostle therefore commences by detailing the 
historic circumstances of the type, explaining the name 
of Melchisedek, and his being king of Salem, as, in im- 
portant senses, typical; and by declaring that his 
standing, in the historical account of him, without 
genealogy, without origin or end, but made like (i. e. 
a type of ) the Son of God, was designed to constitute 
him (though only in a typical sense, of course,) a 
priest forever (vv. 1-3). He then directs attention 
more fully to the type, in view of other historical cir- ° 
cumstances, and in comparison with the Levitical 
priesthood, and shows his superiority (vv. 4-10). 
1. (a) How great was he to whom Abraham, the 


CHAPS. VI, ΥΙΙ.---ΑΝ ΑΤΎΒΙΒ. 231 


patriarch, paid tithes? The Levitical priests indeed, 
in virtue of ther office, receive tithes of their brethren, 
although descended equally with themselves from the 
loins of Abraham; but here, one that had no gene- 
alogy (to boast), tithed Abraham himself, and further- 
more, (@) blessed him who had the promises: and 
without controversy, the less is blessed of the greater 
(vv. 4-7). 2. Inthe one case, men that die receive 
tithes, but in the other, he who, according to the ac- 
count, still liveth (v. 8); and 3. We may say that 
through Abraham, even Levi, who receives tithes, was 
tithed, for he was yet in his father’s loims when Mel- 
chisedek met him (vv. 9, 10). 


232 HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. Vv. 138. 


COMMENTARY. 


~ \ , , ’ 
13 Τῷ yao ‘ASoaau ἐπαγγειλάμενος ὃ ϑεός, ἐπεὶ 
2 , Age ” 
κατ᾽ οὐδενὸς εἶχε μείζονος ὀμόσαε; ὥμοσε καϑ' 
~ Γ > ‘ ~ ΄ 
14 ἑαυτοῦ, λέγων" “Ἢ μὴν εὐλογῶν εὐλογήσω σε, 
‘ / Ld ~ 4 
15 καὶ πληϑύνων πληϑυνῶ os.” Kai οὕτω paxgo- 
“ > ~ ἢ , 
ϑυμήσας ἐπέτυχε τῆς ἐπαγγελίας. 


V. 13. yee. The force of this connective in this 
place has been indicated in the Analysis. It may be 
regarded as related to évdsixvvotac or to μὴ vad oot 
γένησθε μεμηταὶ δὲ of vy. 11, 12; for they both ex- 
press nearly the same proposition, the one affirma- 
tively, and the other negatively. And the conjunction 
now introduces the illustrative reason for persevering 
in zeal, which is found in the history of Abraham: 
‘I desire each one of you to be persevering, faithful, 
and patient; for (γάρ), it was by such a course that 
Abraham obtained the promise confirmed to him by 
the oath of God’ | : 

εἶχε... ὀμόσαι. The former of these verbs here 
expresses an external, or objective ability: ‘Since he 
had not to swear, in the sense of ‘could not swear, 
It is equivalent to ἐπεὲ οὔδενα μείζονα εἶχε xa οὗ 
ὀμόσεεε, for which it may be considered as an ellipsis. 
The reader may compare Matt. 18: 25, My ἔχοντος δὲ 
«αὐτοῦ ἐποδοῦναε, ‘But he not being able to pay, 
John 8: 6, ive ἔχωσε κατηγορεῖν «αὐτοῦ. 2 Pet. 1: 15, 


« - » \ .8 Υ̓͂ — 9. ‘ h 
ὑμᾶς ἔχεεν τὴν τούτων μνημη» ποιεῖσθαε, ‘that you 


HEBREWS, CHAP:' VI. 16. 399 


may be able to recollect these things’ In all the 
instances of this construction, ἔχω is followed by the 
infinitive. The usage is a classic as well as a biblical 
one. 

καϑ' ἑαυτοῦ. In this construction the force of 
xara is usually ‘down upon,’ and hence simply ‘ upon,’ 
as in Mark 14: ὃ, καὶ συντρίψασα τὸ ἀλάβαστρον, 
κατέχεεν αὐτοῦ κατὰ τῆς κεφαλῆς. So in Josephus, 
B. J., B. 2. ¢. 3, 89. In Isaiah 45:23 and 2 Chron. 
36: 13, the same construction is used for ‘swearing by 
God,’ as a translation for "my? "2. 

V.14. ἢ μὴν is often used in the classics, in seri- 
ous, emphatic affirmation. 

εὐλογῶν εὐλογήσω (‘ Blessing, I will bless thee’). 
This construction is of course Hebraistic here, as it is a 
quotation from Gen. 22: 17, where the Septuagint, as 
in many other places, has imitated the use of the He- 
brew infinitive absolute. But it was also not uncom- 
mon in the classic Greek writers, as in Herod. B. 5. 
$95, φεύγων ἔχφευγεε. The participle undoubtedly 
expresses, in most cases, an additional emphasis: ‘I 
will richly bless thee, and greatly multiply thee’ See 
Winer’s Id. New Test. $46. 8, p. 277. 

V.15. Kai οὕτω refers to the faithfulness of the 
promise, as confirmed by the oath: ‘In accordance 
with this promise and oath, Abraham obtained the 
thing promised.’ 

μακροϑυμήσας expresses, ‘to be long-suffering,’ 
and thence ‘to be patient,’ or, ‘patiently to wait for.’ 
This sense we see in James 5:7, 8, Μαχροϑυμήσατε 


284 HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. v. 16. 


οὖν, ἀδελφοί, ἕως τῆς παρουσίας τοῦ HUQLOV.» « μακρο- 
ϑυμήσατε καὶ ὑμεῖς, στηρέίξατε τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν, &e. 
“And thus, when (or because) he waited patiently, 
he obtained,” &e. 

τῆς ἐπαγγελίας. This is used by metonymy for 
the fulfilment, or the thing promised; viz. a seed 
(Isaac) in whose posterity the promise was fulfilled. 


16 νϑρωποε μὲν γὰρ κατὰ τοῦ μείζονος ὀμνύουσι, 
καὶ πάσης αὐτοῖς ἀντελογίας πέρας εἰς βεβαίωσεν 

17 ὁ ὅρκος. Ἐν ᾧ περισσότερον βουλόμενος 6 ϑεὸς 
ἐπιδεῖξαι τοῖς κληρονόμοις τῆς ἐπαγγελίας τὸ με- 

18 τάϑετον τῆς βουλῆς αὑτοῦ, ἐμεσίτευσεν ὅρκῳ, ἵνα 
διὰ δύο πραγμάτων ὠἀμεταϑέτων, ἐν οἷς ἀδύνατον 
wsvoaota ϑεόν, ἰσχυρὰν παράκλησεν ἔχωμεν ot 
καταφυγόντες κρατῆσαε τῆς προκεεμένης ἐλπίδος" 

19 ἣν ὡς ἄγκυραν ἔχομεν τῆς ψυχῆς ἀσφαλὴ τὲ καὶ 
βεβαίων, καὶ εἰφξερχομένην εἰς τὸ ἐσώτερον τοῦ 

20 καταπετάσματος, ὅπου πρόδρομος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν εἰς- 
ἤλϑεν Ἰησοῦς, κατὰ τὴν τάξεν Μελχεσεδὲκ ἀρχεε- 
ρεὺς γενόμενος εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. : 


V. 16. «¢ βεβαίωσιν. These words should be 
construed as dependent upon ὠντελογίας πέρας, rather 
than ὅρκος, as our English translation renders it. Had 
the latter been the construction which the writer in- 
tended, the arrangement of the words would have 
been, according to general usage, ὁ εἰς βεβαίωσεν 
ὅρκος. By adopting the former construction, also, the 
proper force of the article before ὅρκος is more easily 


τ ναι We, CRAP. τ ας απ wht 235 


preserved: “ Zhe oath is the end of all controversy 
unto confirmation.” εἰς here expresses the end or issue. 
The connectives μὲν γὰρ introducing this verse, refer 
to ὥμοσε καϑ' ἑαυτοῦ in the previous ; for the scope 
of the verse is to give an explanatory confirmation 
how it was that God ‘ swore upon himself” It was be- 
cause an oath among men gives certainty to the point 
sworn to; and God wished to give the heirs of the 
promise the comfort of a similar, and even greater 
certainty. 

V.1%. Ἐν o. Bretschneider’s Lex. and Winer’s 
Id. New Test. ($52. 3, p. 811) translate these words 
literally, ‘gua in re, Calvin, ‘7m quo?’ Robinson’s Lex- 
icon renders them “wherefore.” Kiihner, in his Gr. 
Gram. $289. 1. (8.) (¢.), gives some countenance to 
such a sense, by saying that ἐν is used ‘to denote con- 
formity ;’ a sense which would give here about this 
rendering: ‘In accordance with which fact’ (the effect 
of an oath among men), ‘ God interposed with an oath,’ 
&e. But it is abundantly established by the gram- 
matical authorities that ἐν is not unfrequently used of 
the ground, occasion, motive, &c. So here, Ἐν ᾧ, ‘In 
regard of which,’ ‘wherefore. With such a render- 
ing, it is easy to comprehend to what the relative re- 
fers, viz. to the fact stated in v.16. But with the 
sense of Bretschneider, &c., it would not be easy to 
give it a natural reference to any thing in the context. 

ἐμεσίτευσεν. This word carries primarily the sim- 
ple sense of ‘mediated, whence, without straining, it 
derives the sense ‘intervened, or ‘interposed, with an 


236 HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. v. 18. 


oath. In illustration of the word Bretschneider com- 
pares Josephus, Antiq. Jud. B. 4. ¢ 6. $7, ταῦτα 
ὀμνόντες, ἔλεγον καὶ ϑεὸν μεσίτην ὧν ὑπισχνοῦντο 
ποιουμένοι. The translation of the common English 
version, ‘and called God for the arbitrator of what 
they promised,’ is only ad sensum. According to this 
example from Josephus, the phrase under discussion 
would seem to mean, ‘He made some one a mediator, 
by the oath” As God is the Saviour, of course he can 
bring in no higher, and accordingly he must interpose 
Himself as a mediator. So that, at any rate, an in- 
transitive sense is acquired to the verb. The English 
version can scarcely be justified; and the sense first 
assigned is undoubtedly the preferable one. 

V.18. διὰ δύω πραγμάτων. What are these two 
transactions? Almost all the critics answer, correctly 
as we think, they are the promise and the oath. These 
are both ‘unchangeable, ‘incapable of being changed,’ 
or ‘set aside’ Stuart very unnaturally makes one of 
the two things the promise of v. 14, ‘ Blessing I will 
bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee,’ and 
the other, the promise of 5:6 above, “Thou art a 
priest forever, after the order of Melchisedek,” or even 
that of 8:11, “So I sware in my wrath, They shall 
not enter into my rest.” The opinion of Storr must be 
considered equally unnatural, if indeed he coneurs in 
this interpretation. The references to chapters 5: 6, 
and 3:11, may justly be said to introduce a far-fetched 
idea, both literally and tropically. But Stuart argues 
that the ordinary interpretation is inapposite. “For — 


HEBREWS, CHAP. vI. v. 18. 937 


the writer here states, that what is sworn to, even 
among men, must be regarded as fixed and established. 
More surely, what God has once solemnly declared, can 
never be annulled.” His drift seems to be that the 
Apostle could not mean to represent the promise as 
one immutable thing, and the oath confirming that 
same promise as another immutable thing, because the 
promise, when once declared, by the God of truth, was 
already as certain as it could be made. But this is 
shown to be wholly irrelevant by the matter of fact, 
that God did, in condescension to our weakness, not 
only promise, but confirm it with an oath; and that 
the author, in the immediate context, represents the 
oath as superadded to the promise, in conformity to 
the usages of men. That the promise without the oath, 
would have been as. immutable as the oath could make 
it, surely does not disqualify it for being one of the two 
immutable things ! 

παράκλησιν. This word is translated by Stuart, 
‘persuasion or inducement,’ and is so taken as to make 
“ρατῆσαι depend on it: ‘That we, who have sought a 
refuge, might have strong persuasion to hold fast the 
hope which is set before us.’ But this is forbidden by 
the arrangement of the words, which obviously makes 
zeatnoac dependent on xeruguvyorrec. And the 
thing is more conclusive, especially because the natu- 
ral order makes so good a sense. There can be no 
objection to giving παράκλησεν the meaning of ‘com- 
. fort, or ‘consolation, which is so common in the New 
Test. It is not found, perhaps, in the classic use of 


238 HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. v. 18. 


the word ; but is nearly allied to the sense of ‘ encour- 
agement,’ which is one of its current meanings. Bret- 
schneider even gives the meaning ‘comfort, below in 
12:5, καὶ ἐχλέλησϑε τῆς παρακλήσεως (rendered in 
the English version, ‘exhortation’). A sense similar to 
this is found in the word, in ch. 13: 22, where also it 
is rendered in our version, ‘exhortation:’ ἀγέχεσϑε 
τοῦ λόγου τῆς παρακλήσεως. 

ἐλπίδος. ‘This indicates the hope held out in the 
promises. It seems scarcely necessary to suppose a 
metonymy in this word, taking it, as Calvin does, for 
the promise on which hope rests (the effect for the 
cause), or, with Kuinoél, Bloomfield, Stuart, for the 
thing hoped for. The reason of this remark will be 
seen anon. But yet, it is certain that -the mention of 
the hope, refers to the promise on which that hope de- 
pends. If we adopt the natural view of the author’s 
words, the promise here referred to is the one to Abra- 
ham, mentioned in the 14th verse above. The hope 
of the author, and other New Test. believers, is forti- 
fied by two immutable things, the promise and oath. 
But it is in this transaction with Abraham, that the 
two are found to concur. We learn, therefore, that 
the promise to Abraham was not a Jewish and na- 
tional, but a Gospel covenant, and that not only Abra- 
ham, but all believers may trust init. The blessing 
covenanted was not only the Holy Land, and a multi- 
tudinous posterity, but redemption through that divine 
Seed, who was to come of Abraham according to the 
flesh. These truths the Apostle here assumes; he had 


HEBREWS, OHAP. VI. v. 19. 239 


explicitly stated and argued them in Rom. 4: 9-17, 
and Gal. 3: 8, 9, 14,15, 16, 17. The understanding 
of them is necessary, to perceive fully the coherency 
of the ideas in the passage under remark. 

V.19. ἥν, scilicet ἐλπέδος. Here all the com- 
mentators concur in the conclusion that there is no 
metonymy ; for it is evidently more natural and appro- 
priate to represent the mental affection, hope, as an 
anchor to the soul, than the promise, or the thing 
promised. If we should say that the promise of God, 
or the thing promised by God, is an anchor to the 
soul, the meaning would be less direct and literal than 
when we say the hope which rests on the promise, and 
looks to the object, is our anchor. It is through the 
affection of hope that the promise and the object affect 
our souls. But if there is no metonymy in the rela- 
tive, why suppose one in its antecedent? That which 
we represent as the anchor of the soul, may, with equal 
propriety and directness, be represented as laid hold 
of by the soul. It should be noted that in both these 
propositions, there is ὦ metaphor, not in the subjects, 
but the predicates. The participle εἰξερχομένην 1s 
obviously to be construed with ἥν. 

τὸ ἐσώτερον τοῦ καταπετάσματος. ‘These words 
denote, in a figure drawn from the Jewish tabernacle, 
the heavenly sanctuary; that is, heaven itself. In 
the tabernacle, the part within the veil was the holy 
of holies, into which none but the high-priest entered ; 
and that on the day of atonement alone. In the true 
tabernacle, of which the Levitical was the copy, our 


240 MEBREWS, CHAP. VI. Vv. 20. 


divine High-Priest has gone into the highest heaven, 
before the immediate presence of God; and there is 
our anchor fastened. That is, our hope embraces ob- 
jects in heaven itself, and therefore glorious, holy, im- 
movable. ‘The hope therefore partakes of the nature 
of its object, and is “ ὠσφαλῆς re καὶ βεβαία." 

V. 20. ὅπου ὁ πρόδρομος, “The forerunner.” 
As has been well pointed out by Bloomfield, this word 
in the New Test. generally, if not always, expresses 
not only the idea of precedency in time, but of a pre- 
paration made by the πρόδρομος for those who are to 
follow. The latter is more fully expressed by the 
addition, ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, ‘on our behalf? Both these ideas 
concur in Christ. He went before us, “and became 
the first-fruits of them that slept.” (1 Cor. 15: 20.) 
And he went “to prepare a place for us,” John 14: 2. 
The terms and phraseology employed in this conclu- 
sion, are all seemingly selected with a view to a natu- 
ral return to the author’s immediate subject. He had 
approached it, as was above stated, and had propound- 
ed it in ch. 5: 5-10; but had digressed at the threshold 
of his discussion, to rebuke and stimulate his readers. 
He now passes from his admonition to his discussion, 
by a most skilful transition. The example of Abra- 
ham, cited for confirmation of the command to perse- 
vere and progress, suggests the promise on which he 
and later believers alike trusted. This suggested the 
hope, of which that promise, oath-confirmed, was the 
object, this again the heavenly home on which that 
hope fixed itself, and this the Mediator, who has gone 


HEBREWS, OMAP. VIT..v. 4. 241 


before and now reigns, on our behalf, in that upper 
sanctuary. Christ the Priest being thus again pro- 
pounded, the Apostle repeats the proposition which is 
next to be considered: ‘That He is appointed a High- 
Priest forever, after the order of Melchisedek. Let 
the reader observe, also, how each added idea, while it 
leads the mind forward to the desired transition, also 
points backward, giving a topic of confirmation to the 
exhortation. 


VI. 1 Οὗτος yao ὃ Μελχισεδέκ, βασιλεὺς Tadny, 
~ ~ ~ c , c f 2 

ἑερεὺς τοῦ ϑεοῦ [τοῦ] ὑψίστου ὃ συναντήσας ‘AGoa- 

ἂμ ὑποστρέφοντε ἀπὸ τῆς κοπῆς τῶν βασελέων καὶ 


bo 


2 ’ > ΄ ra \ ’ > A t > ’ 
εὐλογήσας αὐτὸν, ᾧ καὶ δεκάτην ἀπὸ πάντων ἐμέ- 
2 , ~ / 
ρεσεν Αβρααμ, πρῶτον μὲν ἑρμηνευνόμεγνος βασε- 
\ , » \ Ud 
λεὺς δωχαεοσυνης, éxecta δὲ καὶ βασελεὺς Lady, 
8 ao > > ἢ ica > / ἧς 2 Γ } Γ > : 
(6 ἐστε, βασελεὺς εἰρήνης,) ἀπάτωρ, ἀμήτωρ, ἀγε- 
Γ΄ , δ. \ c ~ ͵ ~ / 
γεαλογητος, μητὲ ἀρχὴν ἡμερῶν μὴητε ζωῆς τέλος 
γ By if ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 
ἔχων, ἀφωμοιωμένος δὲ τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ ϑεοῦ, μένει 
\ \ ἤ 
LEQEUS εἰς τὸ OLNVEHES. 


V.1. yao. We here also assign to this connective 
its proper logical relation between the proposition pre- 
ceding it, and the one introduced by it. Stuart very 
lightly dismisses the connexion of thought by re- 
marking only: ‘yao is here the sign of resuming a 
topic which had been suspended.’ We incline, with 
Winer (Idioms of New Test. $57. 4. & 6, pp. 348, 352), 
to reject, m all cases, all such suppositions of anoma- 
lous and feeble senses for the word, and to seek for it 

16 


242 HEBREWS, OHAP. VII. Vv. 1. 


its proper force. It is always most safe and honest, to 
assume that the author means what he says; and not 
to measure his meaning arrogantly, by our ability to 
perceive it. Ifwe are unable, as yet, to see distinctly 
that logical connexion of ideas, which the writer's 
words indicate he intended, our business as interpre- 
ters is rather to confess our ignorance, and to seek a 
more thorough insight into the author’s intent, and 
into the true bearings of his thought, than to elude a 
difficulty, by inventing unusual and unnatural senses 
for leading words. 

An attentive consideration will leave little diffi- 
culty here, in assigning to the connective its usual 
force. Let us premise that Οὗτος ὁ Medyiosdéx is to 
be construed as the subject of μένεε ἱερεύς, in v. 8, all 
that intervenes bemg parenthetic. (Thus it is con- 
strued by the Engl. version, Stuart, Winer, and most 
critics.) Calvin introduces the substantive-verb after 
οὗτος, translating ‘Hie enim erat Melchizedek, rex 
Salem.” γὰρ then introduces the proposition: ‘This 
Melchisedek ... remaineth a priest forever, as con- 
firmatory and illustrative of the preceding statement ; 
‘Christ (was) appointed a High-Priest forever, after 
the order of Melchisedek’ (ch. 6: 20). A connexion 
of thought precisely similar, even as to the expressing 
of the precedent proposition by a participle, is made 
by γὰρ between 1: 4 and 1: 5, above. See Commen- 
tary, p. 15. From the connexion of the first proposi- 
tion of the 7th chapter with the last of the 6th, the 
author so introduces his statement of the type, as to 


BORREWS, OMAP. Mite oN: yd. 248 


make it serve as an argument for the eternity of the 
priesthood of Christ. 

Various opinions have been held of Melchisedek. 
The Hieracitz believed him to be the Holy Spirit; 
the Melchisedeciani, a Gnostic sect, to be one of the ᾿ 
duvaecc, who emanated from God ; some of the Chris- 
tian Fathers, the Son of God, the Logos; Origen held 
him to be an angel; Hulsius believed that he was 
Enoch raised from the dead; the Targums, Jonath. 
and Jerus. that he was Shem, the son of Noah; and 
some moderns have attempted to identify him with 
Job. We know of him nothing more than is con- 
tained in the narrative of Gen. 14: 18-20. The only 
rational sense to put upon that simple and natural 
statement is, that Melchisedek was a righteous and 
peaceful king, a worshipper and priest of the Most 
High God, in the land of Canaan, a friend of Abra- 
ham, but elevated above him in rank, and illustrious 
for his piety amidst surrounding corruptions and 
idolatry. 

βασελεὺς Zahn. 'The reference here can only be 
to n2v, in the narrative of Melchisedek, Gen. 14: 18. 
To make any thing else of the phrase, than a natural 
and simple recitation of the historical fact so explicitly 
stated (n> 729) seems to us in the highest degree fan- 
ciful. (Yet the providence of God had a typical de- 
sign in the name of the locality where he reigned, as 
is explained in the second verse.) Stuart and others 
have supposed that Σιαλὴμε is not the name of a local- 
ity, but descriptive only. Other commentators haye 


944 HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. Vv. 2. 

almost universally taken this Salem as the same with 
Jerusalem, on the authority of Josephus, Jewish Antiq. 
B. 1. ς. 10. 89. Strong confirmation is found for this 
in Psalm 76: 2 (in Hebrew, v. 3), “In Salem also is 
' his tabernacle, and his dwelling-place in Zion.” 

V.2. The Apostle, in interpreting the names of 
Melchisedek and of the seat of his kingdom, plainly 
from the context assigns to them a spiritual and typical 
import. It would be strange, indeed, if these character- 
istics were designed to teach merely that Melchisedek 
was a ‘righteous and peaceful king” The history, the 
analogy between the type and antitype, and the sig- 
nificant import of names and circumstances in patri- 
archal times, justify the opinion that, in his personal 
character, he was such a king. But then, as is inti- 
mated in this concession, the type would thus only 
be the more complete, the better adapted to the de- 
sign of foreshadowing the antitype. In the latter we 
must seek suitable characteristics, and when the terms 
are applied to Him, we must understand them in the 
largest sense. Thus, of the characteristics of the Mes- 
siah as foretold in Isaiah 9:6, 7, among the most 
prominent are these: that his name should be called 
‘The Prince of Peace, that he should ‘establish his 
kingdom with justice and judgment,’ and that it should 
be ‘from henceforth even forever.’ 

ἑρμηνευόμενος. The features of the type here ex- 
hibited, set forth the kingly character of the antitype. 
He is the king of righteousness and peace, in the 
truest and highest sense. It lies on the very surface 


HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. v. 3. 245 


here, that the author meant to have his readers re- 
ceivé the impression (as they will do, unless there is a 
positive effort made to avoid it), that, as the type 
united the priestly and regal character, so did the 
antitype; and it is equally evident that this was de- 
signed to show, in part, the higher order of this priest- 
hood. It is done as it were, en passant, but must not 
therefore be overlooked ; while the great distinguish- 
ing feature is more prominently stated in v. 3, viz. the 
eternity of the dignities. 

V. 3. ἀπάτωρ, ἀμήτωρ, ἀγενεαλόγητος. The last 
of these three words should be understood as explica- 
tive of the two former; so that we have here a gene- 
ral, after a particular, affirmation. Calvin, we appre- 
hend, has best exhibited the sense: “ Sine patre. ‘Ita 
malo, quam ¢gnoti (vel non sacerdotalis, he might have 
added) patris. Expressius enim quiddam voluit dicere 
apostolus quam genus Melchizedek obscurum fuisse vel 
ignotum.... Eximit ergo ipsum Melchizedek a com- 
muni nascendi lege, quo significat eternum fuisse, ut 
recens ejus origo in hominibus queerenda non sit. Cer- 
tum quidem est, a parentibus fuisse progenitum; sed 
hic de eo tanquam privato homine Apostolus non dis- 
putat; quin potius illum induit persona Christi. Ita- 
que nihil aliud sibi in eo intueri permittit, quem quod 
Scriptura docet. Nam in omnibus que ad Christum 
pertinent tractandis, ea adhibenda est religio, ut nihil 
sapiamus nisi ex verbo Domini. Nunc, cum Spiritus 
Regem sui temporis preestantissimum inducens, de ortu 
ejus taceat, nec postea mentionem ullam faciat mortis, 


240 HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. V. 38. 


nonne hoc perinde valet acsi accommodata esset ejus 
eeternitas ? Quod autem in Melchizedek fuit adumbra- 
tum vere in Christo exhibitum est. Ergo, hac medio- 
critate contentos esse nos decet, quod, dum Scriptura 
Melchizedek talem nobis proponit, quasi qui nunquam 
vel natus sit vel mortuus, velut in pictura demonstrat 
nullum Christo esse nec principium nec finem.... 
Atqui Melchizedek non hic in privata (ut aiunt) quali- 
tate, sed quatenus sacer est Christi typus, consideratur. 
Nec vero fortuito, vel per incogitantiam id videri 
omissum debet, quod nulla ili cognatio tribuitur, nul- 
lus habetur de morte sermo; verum id potius consulto 
fecit Spiritus, ut nos supra vulgarem hominum ordinem 
attolleret.” 

ἀφωμοιωμένος. This word is used- only here in 
the New Test. The Lexicons generally translate it, 
‘likened to, ‘made like’ With this meaning, the 
clause contains obvious confirmation of Calvin’s inter- 
pretation above given. The antithesis indicated by dé 
following ἀφωμοεω μένος is not to be neglected. The 
sense runs thus: “ Melchisedek ... without father, 
without mother, that is to say, having no genealogy 
as a priest, having (in his priestly capacity) no fixed 
termini to the duration of his office; ὁμέ (unlike the 
Aaronic priests) assimilated to the Son of God (in 
these respects), remaineth a perpetual priest.” Calvin 
here remarks: “ Assimilatus. Nempe quoad ferebat 
significandi ratio; semper enim analogia inter rem et 
-signum tenenda est.” Stuart gives to ὠφωμοεωμένος a 
weaker sense, ‘like to, or ‘being compared to,’ and 


HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. v. ὃ. 247 


supposes that if the sense adopted by us, by Calvin, 
and the English version, were adopted, we should be 
compelled to admit a ὕστερον πρότερον. He urges 
that, in this view, it was Christ who was made like to 
Melchisedek (Ps. 110: 4, “'Thou art a priest forever, 
after the order of Melchisedek”), and not the latter 
that was made like to Christ. It is true that “the 
Apostle is not here labouring to show that Melchise- 
dek was made like to Christ,” but he is expounding 
the type; and he here declares that the particulars 
just mentioned, were true of Melchisedek, because he 
was made like to Christ; in other words, because he 
was a type of him. It was an expedient to represent, 
by a mortal type, the eternity of the antitype. It is 
true that the royal priest of Salem preceded Christ in 
time ; but Christ was first in the divine design. The 
reason why the divine Providence gave to Melchise- 
dek, in his name, residence, character, and the peculiar 
historical record left of him, these particular character- 
istics, was, that he might be jit for a type to represent 
the Saviour to come. So that it is literally true, Mel- 
chisedek was made like that divine King and Priest, 
whose official character had been, from eternity, shaped 
out in the divine intention, although it was not actu- 
ally exhibited in the flesh till many generations after 
Melchisedek. 

εἰς τὸ Ocnvexec. On these words remarks Kiittneri 
Hypomn. New Test.: ‘ Nusquam sacerdotium amississe 
fertur; plus in typo exprimi non potuit.’ The word 
is only found in the Hebrews, of al] the books in the 


248 HEBREWS, OHAP. VII. V. 3. 


New Test., viz. 10:1, below: κατ᾽ ἐνεαυτὸν ταὶς av- 
ταῖς ϑυσίαις, as προςφέρουσεν εἰς τὸ δεηνεκὲς (here it 
should be rendered ‘ perpetually,’ and does not signify 
an actual eternity); 10:12, αὐτὸς δὲ μέαν ὑπὲρ amae- 
τεῶν προςενέγκας ϑυσίαν εἰς τὸ δωηνεκές, ἐκάϑεσεν ἐν 
deka τοῦ ϑεοῦ (where it signifies clearly an actual 
eternity); and 10:14, Mcé yao προσφορᾷ τετελείω- 
κέν εἰς τό διηνεκὲς τοὺς ἀγεαζομένους. In this last 
passage, also, a duration positively unending may be 
understood. It is properly remarked, therefore, by 
Stuart, that δεηνεκὲς in our text does not, in the abso- 
lute sense, assert eternity of the priesthood of Melchis- 
edek, but only signifies that it was not, like Aaron’s, 
limited to a definite period. There is a sense in which 
Christ’s mediatorial functions also will end. See 1 Cor. 
15: 24-28. δεηνεχὲς is used by Symmachus, in Ps. 48: 
15, as a translation for 32) D242. 


~ ’ r = Ui > 
4 Θεωρεῖτε δέ, πηλέκος οὗτος, ᾧ καὶ δεκάτην ‘AGo«- 
» ’ ~ Γ 
au ἔδωκεν ἐκ τῶν ἀκροϑενίων, ὁ πατριάρχης 1 
> ~ ~ “. \ U 
5 Καὶ of μὲν ἐκ τῶν υἱῶν Asvi τὴν ἑερατείαν hau- 
» ~ Ἁ a 
βάνοντες, ἐντολὴν ἔχουσεν ἀποδεκατοῦν τὸν λαὸν 
\ , - » \ ‘J \ 
κατὰ τὸν νόμον, TOUT ἔστε, τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς uv- 
~ ’ Ve ΄ > ~ ἘΞ μ » 
τῶν, καίπερ ἐξεληλυϑότας ἐκ τῆς OOPUOS βρα- 
a ‘ La dhe ~ ΄ 
6 μ᾽ ὃ δὲ μὴ γενεαλογούμενος ἐξ αὐτῶν, δεδεκα- 
\ 3 Ω ’ Ἀ \ » \ > , 
τωκὲ τὸν ASoauau, καὶ τὸν ἔχοντα τὰς ἐπαγγελέας 
r ’ > ’ ΔΝ 
1 εὐλόγηκε. Χωρὶς δὲ πάσης avrihoyias, τὸ ἔλατ- 
ἍΜ - « > ~ mare i ie z ‘ 
8 τον ὑπὸ τοῦ xesirrovos εὐλογεῖται. Καὶ wds μὲν 
4 ͵ ” r 
δεκάτας ἀποϑνήσκοντες ἀνϑρωποι λαμιβανουσεν, 


HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. v. 4. 249 


9 ἐχεῖ δὲ μαρτυρούμενος ore ζῇ. Kat, ὡς ἔπος 

εἰπεῖν, Ota ᾿βραὰμι καὶ Asvi ὃ δεκάτας λαμβά- 

10 νων δεδεκατωταε" ἔτε γὰρ ἐν τῇ ὀσφύϊ τοῦ πατρὸς 
ἣν, ὅτε συνήντησεν αὐτῷ ὃ Μελχεσεδέκ. 


V.4. ἀκχροϑενίων. This word is from ἄκρον and 
div, Mec, a heap. In classic Greek writers it is used 
to express the top of the heap of spoils (thrown to- 
gether in order to division), which was devoted to the - 
gods, and placed in the hands of the priests. It was 
also used by them of the first fruits of the earth, which 
received the same destination. This is the word used, 
by Philo and Josephus, of the spodls taken by Abra- 
ham from the five kings. The reader may consult, 
for these items, Bretschneider’s and Walhl’s Lexicons. 
Hence some critics render the word in this place spoils 
(a part being taken for the whole, the peak of the 
heap for the heap itself), and others, the best of the 
spoils. The former is the more probable, because it is 
almost certain that Abraham gave the tenth of the 
whole, and not a tenth of a small picked portion (ver. 6, 
δεδεκάτωκε τὸν ASoadu). The argument of this verse 
needs little illustration. It is plain that the recipient 
is greater in rank than the payer of tithes; and in 
oriental tribes the rank of the patriarch is superior to 
that of any branch or individual descended from him, 
because he is considered as representing the collective 
dignity of the whole nation proceeding from him. 
Melchisedek, therefore, is greater than Levi. 


c / . . . 
ὁ πατρεάρχης. This noun, accordingly, receives 


250 HEBREWS, OHAP. VII. VV. 5, 6. 


an article and a position intended to make it emi- 
nently emphatic. This emphatic position doubtless 
has reference to the argument, as it is unfolded be- 
low: ‘to whom Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils; 
yes, the patriarch!’ Winer’s Id. New Test. may be 
consulted, $65. 3, p. 416. 

Vs. 5, 6, are designed to strengthen the argument 
from the consideration just presented in v. 4. In these 
three verses (with the 7th as a summary appendix), 
we have presented the first of the three arguments by 
which, as was stated in the Analysis, the superiority 
of the order of Melchisedek to the Levitical priest- 
hood is proved. This first argument subdivides itself 
into two kindred ones: (@) that Melchisedek tithed 
Abraham; (() that he blessed him;~both of which 
imply superiority. These verses are designed at the 
same time to obviate any counter argument that might 
be drawn from the fact that the Levitical priests re- 
ceived tithes of their brethren. The scope of this 
part of the Apostle’s language is: ‘The priesthood 
gave the Levites this pre-eminence over their brethren 
descended equally with them from the loins of Abra- 
ham: a greater priesthood must his be, who, though 
having no genealogy from them (in fact, having no 
genealogy whatever to confer distinction on him), 
tithed and blessed Abraham their father, and the re- 
ceiver of the promises.’ Calvin thus unfolds the scope: 
“Quum Leuitis Deus consessit jus exigendi a populo 
decimas, ita Israelitis omnibus eos preefecit, tametsi in 
eodem parente essent omnes simul progeniti; atqui 


HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. vv. 5, 6. 251 


Abraham, qui omnium pater est, sacerdoti aliegenz 
solvit decimas. Ergo huic sacerdoti omnes posteri 
Abrahe subjecti sunt.” 

In judging of this argument, we must remember 
the pre-eminence given by God to Abraham, in that 
he made him the father of the faithful. We must re- 
member, too, that the receiving of tithes, or pronoun- 
cing of blessings, belonged to official or natural supe- 
riors. The superiority of the Levites over their 
brethren, in virtue of which they tithed and blessed 
them, was only official. Melchisedek boasted no such 
technical and official superiority derived from mere 
recularity of genealogy, and yet he tithed and blessed 
the patriarch who was both the natural and official 
superior, both of Levi and all his equal brethren. "10 
may even be suggested with plausibility, that there is 
this meaning in the periphrasis for the Aaronic priest- 
hood, of μὲν τὴν ἑερατείαν λαμβάνοντες, ‘they that 
recewed the priest’s office ;’ and in the statement, ἐντο- 
Any ἔχουσεν ἀποδεκατοῦν τὸν λαὸν κατὰ TOY νόμον, 
‘they have ὦ command to tithe the people according 
to the law ;’ together with the antithetic statement, 
6 δὲ μὴ γενεαλογούμενος ἐξ «αὐτῶν, δεδεχκάτωκχε TOY 
᾿βραώμ. These may possibly warrant the idea that 
the Levitical priesthood was wholly derived in its 
functions and immunities, while Melchisedek’s, without 
genealogy, and under no law, combining the regal and 
priestly character, exhibits a priesthood of a higher 
order, and typifyig that of Christ, who, in virtue οὔ 
his divine nature, has authority in himself to tithe and 


252 HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. v. .%. 


bless. But here we may be referred to 5: 5, 6 above; 
for in that place it is stated that Christ was like the 
Aaronic priesthood in this very particular, that he re- 
ceived his office by appointment, and ‘did not glorify 
himself to be made a priest.’ This is true; but yet 
Christ did not derive his priesthood from a genealogi- 
cal descent, and exercise its powers, as one of a class, 
in virtue of aregular institution. And it should be 
remembered, also, that Christ was not only man, but 
God, independent, and assuming his mediatorial fune- 
tions of his own good pleasure. 

un γενεαλογούμενος. This word occurs only here 
in the New Test. But it is evident that it should be 
rendered, ‘not being reckoned of them, i. 6. not beg 
of their genealogy. The use of the indirect negative 
μὴ with this participle, should also be noticed. It 
does not here express a negation less complete than ov, 
but shows that the truth expressed by this clause is 
not before the mind of the writer directly as a subject 
of narration, but indirectly, as a conception of the 
mind bearing on the narration: “ But this man, though 
not reckoned genealogically of them, tithed Abraham.” 

ἐπαγγελέας. The promises made to Abraham are 
here named in the plural, as being repeated on differ- 
ent occasions, and really containing different items, not 
one only. We do not recognize the necessity for in- 
troducing here a Hebraizing pluralis excellentia, as is 
done by some, inasmuch as there is a fair and natural 
sense, fitted to the shape of the expression, without it. 


- \ ow» δὶ 2k ~ , > > 
V.7. τὸ ἔλαττον ὑπὸ τοῦ κρείττονος εὐλογεῖτε. 


HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. v. 7. 253 


Some critics say that ro ἔλαττον presents an instance 
of the use of the neuter for the masculine. John 6: 
37 may be compared, dy, ὃ δίδωσί wor ὁ πατήρ, πρὸς 
ἐμὲ ἥξει, and 1 Cor. 6:11, Kai ταῦτα τενὲς ἢτε (i. 6. 
κλέπται, πλεονέκται, &.). We would prefer to say 
that the author here uses the abstract for the concrete. 
It is well known that the Greek neuter sometimes car- 
ries this sense (compare Winer’s Id. New Test. $27. 4, 
p- 146). The author announces a general proposition, 
containing a principle certainly fit in itself, and strictly 
accordant with facts under the patriarchal and Mosaic 
economies. A similar instance of the neuter in gen- 
eral statements may be seen in 8:18 below. Speak- 
ing of the διαϑήκαε, the Apostle says, τὸ δὲ παλαεού- 
μενον καὶ ynouoxoy, ἐγγὺς agavicuov. In support 
of the fact that blessing is the act of a superior, Calvin 
very justly points out that there are two kinds of 
blessing: the one mutual, where God’s people invoke 
his favour on each other reciprocally, where no supe- 
riority is implied; the other official, where the agent 
speaks as God’s minister and legate. Here the reci- 
procity is out of the question. Such was the blessing 
given by Isaac to Jacob, Gen. 27: 27; by Jacob to 
the sons of Joseph, Gen. 48:15; that which the 
priests were authorized to confer on the people, Numb. 
6:23; and the blessnmg of the apostles by Christ, 
Luke 24:50. In such cases, it is God’s blessing which 
is pronounced; it is by authority, and is efficacious. 
In all these cases the superiority of him who pro- 
nounces it 1s manifest. 


254 HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. vv. 8, 9. 


V.8. ἀποϑνήσκοντεςς ‘Men who die’ here re- 
ceive tithes: consequently their office is temporary. 
The same point of contrast is taken up and more fully ~ 
unfolded in vy. 23, 24 below. 

μαρτυρούμενος ὅτε Sj. The subject of this clause 
is to be construed with the verb to be supplied, viz. 
“received tithes:” “ But there, he who is certified to 
that he liveth (received tithes).” Calvin here says 
well: “Silentium de morte... pro vite testimonio 
accipit. Non valeret hoc quidem in aliis, sed in Mel- 
chizedek, quatenus imago est Christi, merito valere 
debet. Nam quia hic agitur de spirituali Christi regno 
et sacerdotio, nihil loci humanis conjecturis relinqui- 
tur; nec scire aliud fas est, quam quod scripturis pro- 
ditum legimus.” That is to say, The type is described 
as having no end; the order of priesthood which it 
represents, is therefore eternal. 

V.9. ws ἔπος εἰπεῖν, ‘ Ut ita dicam, ‘so to speak,’ 
a qualifying or softening formula, common in the 
Greek writers. There are but two cases in the New 
Test. where this epexegetical infinitive is introduced 
with ὡς, this passage, and Acts 20:24, where it is 
manifestly equivalent to ὥστε. The construction with 
wore is more frequent. In all cases, the relation of 
these infinitives to the leading verbs of the sentence is 
very lax; and here it seems to stand wholly without 
regimen. Some critics have translated it, “ Ut breviter 
dicam.’ De Wette translates it, ‘so zu sagen.’ Kreb- 
sius translates thus: ‘Qe ἔπος (ἐν) εἰπεῖν, Ut verbum 
tantum unum dicam—ut breviter dicam,.’ Fischer and 


HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. Vv. 9. 255 


Kypke render: Ut ita dicam, dixerim fere. Kiittneri 
Hypomnem., Ut dicam quod res est. 

It is not easy to see how Levi's being in the loins 
of Abraham at the time of this transaction, proved the 
Aaronic priesthood, instituted long after, to be sub- 
ordinate or inferior to that of Melchisedek. Hence 
some understand the argument as addressed particu- 
larly to the Jews, whose views of Abraham as their 
progenitor and covenant-head would make them feel 
its force. Such an argumentum ad hominem might be 
admitted ina context requiring it. We find an in- 
stance of a similar one used by our Saviour himself, in 
Matt. 12: 27, “And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, 
by whom do your children cast them out? therefore 
they shall be your judges;” where Christ argues upon 
a supposition which he did not mean to affirm, and 
argues fairly, because it was affirmed by his opponents. 
But it is by no means clear that here ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν 50 
dilutes or modifies the argument; on the contrary, 
admitting the qualifying force of the phrase, the argu- 
ment is still propounded in such a way, as to lead us 
to believe that the Apostle meant to ascribe to it 
some force upon other principles than those of mere 
Jewish bigotry and mistaken pride. This ground of 
argument we may perhaps find in the fact that Abra- 
ham was truly the covenant-head of his posterity in 
the line of Isaac and Jacob, in whose descendants the 
promises made to him were fulfilled. It was in virtue 
of this covenant with Abraham, that the Jews inher- 
ited their distinguished privileges as a nation. It was 


256 HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. Vv. 9. 


the transaction with Abraham which brought them 
into the relation of a “peculiar people” to Jehovah ; 
and hence, in his patriarchal character and acts, he 
stood forth as the representative or federal head of 
the sacerdotal nation, so far as all the promises, privi- 
leges, and institutions of that Judaical covenant were 
concerned. He was thus both their natural progeni- 
tor and their covenant-head, by the appointment of 
God. We must remember that He was concerned, 
through His providence and promises, in all this busi- 
ness. Therefore, when Abraham paid tithes to Mel- 
chisedek as priest of the Most High God, and received 
a blessing from him, it was a historical fact intention- 
ally introduced by God’s providence, with a view to 
its becoming a feature of the type (so to speak) which 
Melchisedek, in his history and functions, was fore- 
ordained to present, of the supreme and eternal High- 
Priest. This providential incident prefigured and 
represented, by the divine intention, the supremacy 
of the antitype; and in it Abraham acknowledged the 
official superiority of the type, not only over himself, 
but over his posterity then in his loins, represented by 
and acting in him; and this though he was a patri- 
arch, and inheritor of the promises. See vv. 4—7. 

The objection obviously arises to the Apostle’s 
argument: ‘If this transaction proves the inferiority 
of Levi to Melchisedek, why does it not equally prove 
it of Judah, of the line of David, and of Christ?’ The 
answer presented by Calvin (Commentary 7m Joco) is 
conclusive: Christ’s divine nature and extraordinary 


HEBREWS, CHAP. vit. v. 10. 257 


generation exempt him from the comparison: he was 
not in the loins of Abraham, at the time of the trans- 
action, in the sense in which Levi was. We may 
apply here the solution which is implied for our Sa- 
viour’s question in Matt. 22: 45, “If David then call 
him Zord, how is he his son?” There was a sense in 
which he was David’s Lord, far higher, more endu- 
ring and important, than that in which he was his son. 
And besides, the fact that Melchisedek was designed 
to stand, in this transaction, as the type of Christ, of 
itself renders such a logical opposition an absurdity. 
It places the antitype at once on a higher grade. 
“ Quod subordinatur non pugnat.” | 
V.10. ἔτε yao ἐν τῇ ὀσφύϊ, #74. ere is trans- 
lated by Bretschneider, Schon, Robinson, by ‘ even,’ 
‘already.’ They refer, for illustration of this meaning, 
to Luke 1:15, καὶ πνεύματος ἁγίου πλησϑήσεταε ἔτε 
é# κοιλίας μητρὸς αὑτοῦ, where, Bloomfield remarks, 
re might be correctly replaced by ἤδη. Stuart trans- 


? ‘ a]- 


lates by ‘etiam nunc,’ ‘etiam tune,’ ‘even then, 
ready.” The rendering of the English version, ‘ yet,’ 
‘still, seems, at first view, not to be accordant with 
the Apostle’s scope in the passage, although it is far 
the easiest and most defensible on grounds of usage 
and etymology. It would make the author say, ‘Levi 


” whereas the exigencies of the 


was as yet unbegotten ; 
argument seem to require the statement that Levi was 
already (in a certain sense) in existence, i. e. in his 
progenitor’s loins. This is the sense preferred by Stu- 
art. But it may still be questioned whether the Eng- 


17 


258 HEBREWS, OHAP. VII. v. 10. 


lish version would not appear strictly accordant with 
the author’s scope, if we looked at it from a point of 
view more strictly Jewish. The Apostle does not 
wish to establish the assertion that descendants as yet 
unborn were representatively in existence in their 
patriarchal and covenant-head. That any Jew would 
dispute this, was not the danger; it was an idea too 
congenial to Jewish modes of thought. On the con- 
trary, the point the author would set forth is this: 
that Levi as yet had no other than a representative 
existence ; his personal existence had not yet begun ; 
and therefore he cannot be exempted from the condi- 
tion of inferiority which the act of his representative 
implied. Let the reader ponder the natural connexion 
and scope of the passage with an eye cleared of pre- 
conceptions. It needs scarcely to be remarked, in con- 
clusion, that the author does not intend to assert the 
existence of Levi, in his ancestor, in a physiological 
sense, but only to teach that Levi and his descendants 
were affected in their ceremonial rights and dignities 
by all these federal transactions, as though they had 
been present; and this on account of the representa- 
tive nature of Abraham’s acts. 


CHAPTER VII. 11—28. 


ANALYSIS. 


Havine argued the superiority of Christ’s priest- 
hood to the Aaronic, from the superior order of the 
type, vv. 1-10, the author continues the same argu- 
ment, by a more direct comparison, to the end of the 
chapter, vv. 11-28. 

1. The raising up of a priest after the order of 
Melchisedek, different from that of Aaron, which was 
the basis of the old dispensation, showed that perfec- 
tion (τελεέωσες, see Commentary) was unattainable by 
the Levitical priesthood ; and the more, since a change 
of this priesthood inferred a change of the whole econ- 
omy, vv. 11,12. There has been such a change; for 
(γάρ), First, He, i. e. Christ, of whom these things 
were said (as in Ps. 110: 4), was of ὦ tribe that had 
nothing to do at the altar, which was manifest (v. 14, 
yao) from the notorious fact that our Saviour was 
sprung from Judah, to whose tribe Moses gave no 
priestly functions, vv. 18, 14. Second, it is yet further 
manifest that there has been such a change of the 
priesthood, and consequently of the economy, if a 
priest of ὦ different order has been raised up, not ac- 
cording to a carnal institute, but by virtue of a life 
that is indissoluble, which is plain from the oath of in- 
stitution (γάρ), vv. 15-17. For (yee, v. 18), there is 
thus the abrogation of the first ordinance on account 


260 OHAP. VII.—ANALYSIS. 


of its weakness and inefficiency (for the law brought 
nothing to perfection); and by the substitute, there is 
the introduction of a better hope, even one by which 
we are brought near to God, vv. 18, 19. 

2. The institution of Christ’s priesthood with the 
solemnity of an oath, which was wanting at the ap- 
pointment of the Aaronic, argues Him a sponsor of a 
better dispensation (compare v. 11), vv. 20-22. 

ὃ. In the one case there are many successive 
priests, because they die; but Christ, who continues 
forever the same, holds the priesthood without succes- 
sion, and therefore can save to the uttermost, since He 
lives always to intercede for His people, vv. 23-25. 

4, For (γὰρ) such a High-Priest became (was 
needful for) us, who finally was spotlessly pure and 
exalted to heaven; who thus had no need, as the Levit- 
ical high-priests have daily, to offer sacrifices first for 
their own sins, then for those of the people; for He 
hath offered himself once only for the people, vv. 26, 
27: the rationale of all which is, (γὰρ) that the law 
makes weak and sinful men priests, but the oath suc- 
ceeding the law, and superseding it, appoints to the 
priesthood the Son, glorified forever, v. 28. 


ὯΝ 


12 


18 


14 


15 


16 
17 


18 


19 


HEBREWS, OHAP. Vil. v. 11. 261 


COMMENTARY. 


mE \ ~ ae ~ Li 
Ei μὲν οὖν τελεέωσες διὰ τῆς “ευϊτεκῆς ἑερωσύνης 
5 (ὁ ἢ Nips Χ pee Mees re 3) ’ », 
ἢν, (0 λαὸς yao π᾿ αὐτῇ νενομοϑετητο ") τίς ἔτε 
’ \ \ ery 9 2 , 
χρεία, κατὰ τὴν ταξεν Μελχεσεδὲχκ ἕτερον ἀνίστα- 
r \ \ / 2 . ἢ r 
σϑαε ἑερέα, καὶ ov “xura τὴν τάξεν Aagav” λέ- 
I δ - ἘΝ Tels Ie 
γεσϑαε; Μετατεϑεμένης yao τῆς ἑερωσύνης, ἐξ 
> (4 , / [4] 
ἀνάγκης καὶ νόμου μετάϑεσες γένεται. “Eg ὃν 
\ lé ~ ~ Υ͂ fe 3 3 
yao λέγεται ταῦτα, φυλῆς ETEQUS METECYNHEV, ἀφ 
x ) r ~ , ζ 
ἧς οὐδεὶς προςέσχηκε τῷ ϑυσιαστηρίῳ" πρόδηλον 
A [4 due la r c r ~ Ω 
yao, ὅτε ἐξ Ἰούδα ἀνατέταλκεν ὃ κύριος ἡμῶν, εἰς 
εὶ Χ Γ ee ~ > ld 
ἣν φυλὴν οὐδὲν περὶ ἑερωσύνης Mavons ἐλάλησε. 
πιὰ aes ” ’ 4 ? > ‘ 
Kai περισσότερον ἔτε κατάδηλον ἔστεν, εἰ κατὰ 
\ lA , \ 9 
τὴν ὁμοιότητα Μελχισεδὲκ ἀνίσταταε ἑερεὺς ἕτε- 
«ει } \ r 2 ~ ~ Γ 
00S, 03 οὐ κατὰ νόμον ἕντολῆς σαρκικῆς γέγονεν, 
2 \ \ NS ~ f ~ 
ἀλλὰ κατὰ δύνώμεν ζωῆς axuradvrov. Meorvesi 
r cr \ \ τ τι \ \ 
yao’ “ Ore ou ἑερεὺς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα xata τὴν 
fu ᾿ ae LE ” 7) I? A , 
tagiv Mehyiosdsx.” ᾿Αϑέτησες μὲν yao γένεται 
4 γ - \ ‘ ~ 2 
προαγουσὴης ἐντολῆς, διὰ τὸ αὐτῆς ἀσϑενὲς καὶ 
2 Γ a] δὴ \ > , Ὁ ls . > 
ἀνωφελές, (οὐδὲν yao ἐτελείωσεν ὁ νόμος ) ἐπεες- 
\ Ἴ 3. τ 5) ~ 
αγωγὴ δὲ χρείττονος ἐλπίδος, δὲ ἧς ἐγγέζομεν τῷ 
ϑεῷ. 


V.11. Ee μὲν οὖν, κιτιλ' The particles μὲν οὖν 


here, as often elsewhere, carry little more meaning 
than that of transition; introducing a continuation of 
the discussion. Calvin renders them by Porro. Sucha 
sense must be assigned to them in Hebr. 9:1, Εὖχε μὲν 
οὖν καὶ ἡ πρώτη διχαεώματα λατρείας, TO τὲ ἅγεον 
χκοσμεκόν, and in Acts 96: 4, where Paul, after com- 


202 HEBREWS, OHAP. VII. Vv. 11]. 


pleting the exordium of his ci eb before Agrippa 
with the words, “ Wherefore I pray thee of thy clem- 
ency to hear me,” passes on to his direct discussion, by 
saying, Τὴν μὲν οὖν βίωσίν μου τὴν ἐκ νεότητος, #.T-d. 
(See Winer’s Id. New Test. $57. 4, p. 347.) Our 
English illative then, which in its stronger use is equiv- 
alent to therefore, affords us an apt illustration of this 
use of ovy. In passing to a further topic of discourse, 
we would most naturally say, ‘And then’ (to add 
another ground of argument), ‘if perfection had been 
by the Levitical priesthood,’ &e. 

τελείωσες. ‘The general idea eee by this 
word and its kindred verb, has been before explained 
to be, throughout this Epistle, the bringing of a thing 
to the completeness of the condition proposed for it. 
If we would see its exact meaning here, we must con- 
sider what was the object proposed to be attained by 
a ἑερωσύνης, for its worshippers. It is redemption 
from the consequences of sin. A στελεέωσες then, ἴῃ 
this connexion, would be a perfect redemption (not per- 
fection of moral character only), including ‘ justifica- 
tion and sanctification, a fitting for and raising to glory 
in heaven” This will be evident from a comparison 
of v. 19 below, οὐδὲν γὰρ ἐτελείωσεν ὃ νόμος : of 9:9, 
ϑυσίαε μὴ δυνώμεναε κατὰ συνείδησεν τελεεῶσαε τὸν 
λατρεύοντα: οἵ 10:1, ὁ vouog... οὐδέποτε δύναται 
τοὺς προζςερχομένους τελεεῶσαε: and especially of 10: 
14, where the meaning of the word, in connexion with 
priestly offerings, is most clearly exhibited, Mia γὰρ 


προςφορᾷ τετελείωκεν εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς τοὺς ἀἁγεαζομεέ- 


HEBBEWS, CHAP. VII. v. ll. 263 


vous. This perfecting, then, is that thing which is 
procured for the aycalouévous, the redeemed, by the 
one perfect sacrifice of Christ, i. 6. a complete redemp- 
tion. We are, in this connexion, enabled to under- 
stand the meaning of the phrase of 12: 23 below, 
δωκαέίων τετελεεωμένων. It signifies justified souls who 
are already in the fruition of a complete redemption. 
The reader may profitably refer to. the Commentary 
on 2: 10 above. 

éx αὐτῇ (scilicet ἑερωσύνης) νενομοϑέτητο, “Upon 
it the people received the law.” Here it is evident 
that the νόμος received in νενομοϑέτητο, must be ex- 
plained as the same with the νόμου of v.12. And 
this must be understood as the Mosaic economy, 1. e. 
the whole ceremonial institution of Moses. The same 
thing is named in v. 18 below, προαγούση ἐντολὴ, and 
is said to be ἀσϑενῆς καὶ ἀνωφελῆς. The clause under 
discussion is parenthetic, and is designed to add force 
to the argument implied in the interrogatory. This 
seems to be the Apostle’s scope: ‘The establishing of 
a priesthood of a new order implies the inferiority and 
imperfection of the old. (For if the old were com- 
pletely efficient, why abrogate it?) And this is the 
more evident, because the abrogation of the priest- 
hood carries along with it the abrogation of the whole 
ceremonial economy based upon it. Hence, the abro- 
gation of the priesthood shows also the inefficiency of 
the economy which came in with it.’ The passing 
away of the economy along with its priesthood is 
rather hinted in the parenthesis, than asserted; but in 


264 HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. Vv. 12. 


v. 12, what was before intimated is more fully brought 
out. The implication is, that the Mosaic institution 
was based on the Aaronic priesthood. Calvin re- 
marks, “tenendum est axioma, nullum fcedus inter 
Deum et Homines firmum ratumque esse, nisi sacer-. 
dotio fulciatur.” He translates ἐπ αὐτῇ by “sub eo.” 
Others, in substantially the same sense, render it “sub 
conditione ea.” We would not depart materially from 
this, preferring to render it, “in dependence on this.” 
The γὰρ may be best referred to the emphasis given 
to the preceding words, Asvirixjs ἑερωσύνης, “ΤῈ a 
perfect redemption had been through the Levitical 
priesthood (through the priesthood, 1 say; for on this 
were based all the ceremonial institutions which the 
people received), what need was there still?’ d&e. 
When the Levitical priesthood was proved imperfect 
by its being supplanted by another, the whole Leviti- 
cal economy was proved similarly imperfect, for (γὰρ) 
it was based on that priesthood. 

γ.19. Μετατειϑεμένης yao, #7... This conjune- 
tion is regarded by Stuart as ἃ "γὰρ confirmantis,’ in- 
troducing a ground which sustains something before 
said ; and he refers it to the assertion, ov xara τὴν 
τάξεν ᾿“«ρών, z.t.2. The sense he attributes to the 
author would therefore be substantially this: ‘The 
new priest who arose was not after the order of Aaron, 
for (γὰρ) when the priesthood was changed, there is 
also of necessity a change of the law of succession.’ 
This is a misapprehension of the connexion of thought. 
It affixes to νόμου too narrow a meaning for the scope 


HEBREWS, OHAP. VII. v. 12. 265 


of the whole passage. It supposes that the difference 
of order between Christ’s priesthood and Aaron’s, was 
a thing to be proved; when in truth it was a datum, 
disputed by no one, and used by the Apostle to prove 
something else. It reduces v. 12 to a tautology; for 
a change of the priesthood (in the sense of the whole 
passage), is nothing else than a change of the rule of 
succession. The conjunction yg, therefore, is to be 
understood as referring to the proposition implied in 
the interrogation of v. 11, and strengthened in the 
parenthesis. The Apostle’s scope is to be thus appre- 
hended: ‘ Does not the substitution of a new and dif- 
ferent priesthood imply the imperfection of the old, 
and of the whole of the old sacerdotal economy (for that 
old economy was based on that old priesthood)? Yes; 
it does. For (v. 12, yee), when the priesthood was 
changed, there is made necessarily a change of the 
economy (νόμου) As has been indicated above, 
Stuart says, “Νόμου here means specially ... the 
statute which determined that the priests must all be 
of the descendants of Aaron and of the tribe of Levi.” 
The incorrectness of this is manifest from the intention 
of the whole passage, as unfolded above. It becomes 
still more evident when this verse is compared with 
10: 1 below, where the author re-states with great 
clearness the leading idea of the former passage: “ For 
the law, having a shadow of good things to come, not 
the very image of the things, can never with those 
sacrifices which they offered year by year continually, 
make the comers thereunto perfect (reAecdoac).” 


266 HEBREWS, OHAP. VII. vv. 18, 14. 


What law is this?) That one which had a shadow of 
good things to come, which had continual sacrifices— 
the ceremonial law of Moses. The νόμος of v. 12 is 
the same. Calvin says, “Summa est, non minus tem- 
porale fuisse Mosis quam Aaronis ministerium ; ideoque 
abrogari Christi adventu utrumque oportuisse, quia 
alterum sine altero stare non potuerit. Zegis nomine 
intelligimus quod proprie ad Mosen spectabat. Lex 
enim et regulam bene vivendi, et gratuitum vite foedus 
continet, illicque passim occurrant multe insignes sen- 
tentix, quibus tum ad fidem, tum ad timorem Dei in- 
stituimur. Horum nihil abolitum fuit ἃ Christo, sed 
tantum pars illa que cum veteri sacerdotio implicita 
erat.” 

V.13. γώρ. The Apostle now proceeds to the 
proofs of that change of priesthood which was the 
basis of his argument in vv. 11,12. The first proof, 
contained in vy. 13, 14, is drawn from the ¢rzbe out of 
which the new priest came. The conjunction γὰρ re+ 
fers obviously to MerarePsuévng τῆς ἑερωσύνης i ν. 
12: ‘(The priesthood was changed ;) for He concern- 
ing whom these things are said (scilicet, the promises 
of Ps. 110: 4, &.), pertained to another tribe (than 
Levi’s), of which no member had to do with the altar,’ 
This statement needs no remark. 

V.14. πρόδηλον γάρ. This verse is an appeal to 
the well-known fact of our Saviour’s origin from Ju- 
dah, confirming v.13. The use of the verb (ὠνατέ- 
taidxev) which expresses his arising, is worthy of 
remark. It is used most frequently of the rising of 


HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. v. 15. 267 


heavenly bodies or the light ; and then, of the spring- 
ing up of plants. Its application to the arising of the 
Messiah out of Judah, is probably in imitation of this 
sense. Thus, Zech. 8: 8, “For behoid, I will bring 
forth my servant the branch,” in the Septuagint is 
rendered, δεότε ἔδου ἔγω ἄγω τὸν δοῦλον μον ἀνατο- 
λήν. And the words of Jeremiah, 23: 5, “I will raise 
unto David a righteous Branch,” are written, ἀναστήσω 
τῷ Δαυὶδ ἀνατολὴν δωκαίαν. 

V. 15. Καὶ περισσότερον ἔτε χατάδηλόν ἐστιν, 
κιτι. This is the second argument by which the 
author establishes the abrogation of the old priest- 
hood by the new, vv. 15-17. The proof is drawn 
from the new and superior order of the latter. Calvin 
remarks, “Alio argumento probat abolitam esse Le 
gem. Prius a sacerdotis persona rationatus est: nune 
ἃ natura sacerdotii, et ἃ ratione qua institutum fuit.” 
The thing which is here declared to be “yet more 
abundantly manifest,” 1s undoubtedly the statement 
made in v. 12; that the old priesthood (and with it 
the economy) was changed. The structure of the sen- 
tences and the verbal allusion would seem to indicate 
that the πρόδηλον of v. 14, and the κατάδηλον of v. 
15, have the same subject. But this would make the 
Apostle argue, in v. 15, that it 15 yet more manifest 
that Christ is of the tribe of Judah, because he is a 
priest after the order of Melchisedek! It is therefore 
uncritical to infer an allusion too certainly from such a 
resemblance in the verbal forms. χατάδηλον is the 
predicate, not of the same subject with its cognate ad- 


268 HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. v. 16. 


jective above, but of the leading proposition to which 
that is subordinate. 

εἰ xara τὴν ὁμοιότητα, iS rendered by our Eng- 
lish version, “for that after the similitude of,” &e.; a 
translation for which no sufficient reason can be seen. 
No clear instance can be shown in which the particle 
εἰ has this meaning. ‘There is no reason why we 
should not give it the conditional sense which it 
usually has with the indicative, implying that if the 
condition is true, that which results from it is to be 
regarded as real and certain. (Robinson’s. Lex. New 
Test. sub voce, I. §2.) The sense is, ‘And it is 
yet more abundantly manifest (that the priesthood 
hath been changed), if another priest ariseth after 
the likeness of Melchisedek: (But such a one has 
arisen. )’ 

V.16. xara νόμον ἐντολῆς σαρχεκῆς. Both vo- 
μος and ἐντολὴ are capable of a general and a specific 
sense; as is stated in the common Lexicons. Here, 
one must be general, and the other specific; and since 
ἐντολῆς stands in the construction of a defining noun, 
it is most reasonable to give to it the general sense. 
It matters little, as to sense, whether we render the 
words, ‘ according to a law (νόμεον general) of a carnal 
commandment,’ or, ‘according to a statute of a carnal 
law or dispensation’ (ἐντολῆς general). The former 
sense is more difficult, the latter much easier. We find 
ἐντολὴ used in a collective sense, for God’s command- 
ments, in Mark 7: 8, 9, where Christ is rebuking the 
traditions by which the Pharisees evaded duties: 


HEBREWS, OHAP. VII. v. 16. 269 


‘Apévres yao τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ ϑεοῦ, κρατεῖτε τὴν πα- 
ράδοσεν τῶν ἀνϑρώπων. Καλῶς ἀϑετεῖτε τὴν ἐντο- 
Any τοῦ ϑεοῦ, κιτ.λ. In like manner, we find the word 
δικαεώματα used, in Rom. 2: 26, for the precepts of 
the moral law in general (Ἐὰν οὖν ἡ ἀχροβυστία τὰ 
δικαιώματα τοῦ νόμου φυλάσσῃ), and yet applied to 
ceremonial precepts in the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
The Apostle here means by νόμον ἐντολῆς, the law or 
statute instituting the Aaronic priesthood with carnal 
ordinances, as anointing, clothing with peculiar vest- 
ments, sprinkling with blood, and such like, and in- 
vesting that priesthood with power to remove temporal 
sanctions and ceremonial uncleannesses by various out- 
ward rites. ‘These rites are called in Hebr. 9: 10, 11, 
δωκαεώμασε (in the various reading dcxzucauara) σαρ- 
κός. ‘The comparison of the sense in which the two 
words ἐντολὴ and dcxacoua are used, without σαρκός, 
in the places above cited, and of the meaning which 
δικαεώμασε has here, when thus defined, throws much 
light on the meaning of the phrase éyrodje σαρκεκῆς. 
The ἐντολὴ or Otxacouc above, was the moral law, 
reaching the soul; but the carnal commandment is the 
code of external, merely ceremonial precepts, affecting 
the outward demeanour and ritual acts. The word 
σαρκεκῆς also intimates the temporary and inefficient 
nature of the priesthood. Thus, in 2 Cor. 10: 4, it is 
sald, τὰ γὰρ ὅπλα τῆς στρατείας ἡμῶν οὐ σαρκικά, 
ἀλλὰ δυνατὰ τῷ ϑεῷ: where the opposition is be- 
tween the carnal and the powerful. That which is 
carnal is feeble; that which is spiritual is mighty. 


210 HEBREWS, OHAP. VII. v. 17. 


This meaning is also intimated by the phrase which 
is set in contrast with ἐντολῆς σαρχκεκῆς, in this pas- 
sage; viz. 

κατὰ δύναμεν ζωῆς ἀκαταλύτου. That priesthood 
instituted under a carnal system of rites, is in contrast 
with the one which was according to the power of an 
indissoluble life. In the latter there is efficiency: this 
implies that the former is feeble. In this description 
of the nature of Christ’s priesthood, there is evident 
allusion to the terms in which the type is represented 
in vv. 3 and 8 above, as “ having neither beginning of 
days nor end of life,” and as one “of whom it was 
witnessed that he liveth;” unlike the mortal priests 
who, under Moses’ law, tithed the Jews. The allusion 
is also manifest to the terms of the oatlrin Ps. 110: 4, 
which is quoted immediately after: ov ἑερεὺς εἰς τὸν 
αἰῶνα. ‘The Apostle then thus expresses the superior 
nature of Christ’s priesthood, as being according to a 
type of perpetuity, and comporting with the exalted 
nature of the incumbent, which is also set forth in the 
type. Calvin remarks here, “Non Moses, homo mor- 
talis ipsum consecravit, sed Spiritus Sanctus; id que 
non oleo, nec sanguine hircorum, nec externa vestium 
pompa, sed ccelesti virtute, quam hic Apostolus infir- 
mis elementis opponit.” 

V.17. Μαρτυρεῖ γάρ, “For God witnesseth (to 
Christ): Thou art a Priest forever after the order of 
Melchisedek.” The conjunction γὰρ relates to the pro- 
position ὠνέσταταε ἑερεὺς ἕτερος, and offers the ground 
of evidence for that assertion. ‘The quotation intro- 


HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. v. 18. 271 


duced by it is the proof on which rests the argument 
of vv. 15, 16. 

V.18. “Adérnorg μὲν is the antithesis of ἐπεες- 
ἀγωγὴ δὲ κρείττονος ἐλπέδος, In Vv. 19. This our 
English version seems to have overlooked ; for it im- 
properly closes the sentence at ὠγωφελές, and makes 
ἐπειςαγωγὴ the opposite of ὁ νόμος. “The law made 
nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope 
did” (perfect something). This translation misses the 
author’s true intent. It is true that the Christian 
priesthood did perfect the redemption of believers, 
which the ceremonial law never did; but this is not 
the point before the Apostle’s mind just here. His 
‘main object here is to assert the annulling of the one 
priesthood, and the introduction of another in its 
place, as an evidence that the one introduced is more 
excellent. 

γὰρ seems here to have a conclusive sense, and is 
best understood as connecting vv. 18, 19 with vv. 15- 
17: ‘If such a High-Priest has been ordained, of a 
different order, tribe, efficiency, and perpetuity, as is 
plain from the quotation of v.17, then a change of 
priesthood is further manifest; for there is made an 
abrogation of the preceding institute, on account of its 
weakness and unprofitableness, but an introduction of 
a better hope’ 

προαγούσης ἐντολῆς. These words are understood 
by some, as Kuinoél and Bloomfield, as meaning the 
former dispensation. They seem rather to denote the 
Aaronic institute (on which indeed that dispensation 


212 HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. v. 18. 
. 


was founded). It is certainly far better to retain for 
ἐντολῆς just the sense which we assigned it in v. 16, 
than to introduce a variant one so close to the former. 
That the whole Mosaic economy, so far as it was tem- 
porary, was abrogated, when the institution of the 
human priesthood in the Aaronic family was repealed, 
is very true. The latter act is the one of which the 
author is here speaking. ᾿ 

Ova τὸ αὐτῆς ἀσϑενὲς καὶ avagedéc. Here is the 
reason of the ἀϑέτησις. The institute was weak and 
unavailing to accomplish the τελεέωσες of a believer. 
This reason for its abrogation is intimated in the 
question of v.11 above; and it strongly argues the 
inferiority of the Levitical priesthood. Calvin here 
remarks, “Nam ut ad Christum referebantur figure 
omnes, ita ab eo mutuabantur vim suam et effectum : 
imo per se nihil poterant vel agebant, sed tota vis ἃ 
Christo uno pendebat.” A similar expression in Gal. 
4:9 may be compared: πῶς ἐπεστρέφετε πάλεν ἐπὶ τὰ 
ἀσϑενὴ καὶ πτωχὰ στοιχεῖα, κιτ.λ. It may be asked, 
perhaps, ‘If the Aaronic institute was thus feeble and 
unavailing, why was it given to the Jews at all, and 
why perpetuated for so many centuries?’ As a type 
of the Messiah, to which it pointed, it had its use. 
To that use it was not worthless and unavailing, but 
wisely adapted and efficient. But that typical charac- 
ter implied its ultimate cessation when the Antitype 
came, and it implied that its efficiency in bringing the 
believer to τελεέωσες, or perfect redemption, depended 
on its being used to lead his faith forward to Christ. 


HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. v. 19. 273 


When depended on zm ztself, as a final and sufficient 
system (which was the view of the bigoted Jew), the 
Aaronic institute lost its significancy, and became 
worthless. We may say that it was worthless only 
through the perversion of its errmg advocates, as the 
Apostle, in Rom. 8: 3, says that “the law was weak 
through the flesh,” to give justification to men. 

V. 19. οὐδὲν γὰρ ἐτελείωσεν ὁ νόμος. These 
words are a parenthesis, thrown in both to illustrate 
and confirm (as γὰρ indicates) the statement that the 
ἐντολὴ Was ἀσϑενῆς καὶ ἀνωφελῆς. The sentence as- 
serts substantially of the whole Mosaic dispensation 
(ὁ νόμος), what had just been said of that priesthood 
upon which it was based. The relation between the 
two was indicated by the Apostle in vv. 11, 12, where 
the giving of the dispensation is said to depend on the 
Levitical ἑερωσύνη, and the change of the dispensation 
accompanied its change. This parenthesis explains to 
us in what sense the dispensation was unavailing. In 
itself it secured perfect redemption to none; it pointed 
to a better hope to come. 

ἐπεεςαγωγὴ δέ, κιτ.λ. To this nominative γένεται 
is to be supplied from the protasis in v. 18, according 
to the exposition there given. 

κρείττονος ἐλπίδος. This “hope” stands in anti- 
thesis to the προαγούσης ἐντολῆς of v. 18. The 
“better hope” is put by metonymy for that which 
produced it, viz. the institution of Christ’s priesthood, 
whose power and efficacy are thus exhibited in con- 
trast with the ὠσϑενὲς καὶ ἀνωφελὲς of the Levitical 

18 


274 HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. vv. 20-22. 


priesthood. And this contrast is further exhibited in 
the concluding words of the verse, δὲ ἧς ἐγγέζομεν τῷ 
deo. By the Messiah’s priestly work, believers truly 
and spiritually approach God; they are reconciled to 
him, their prayers are accepted, and his Spirit is 
communicated as a medium of communion. By the 
Aaronic priesthood, the believer was only brought to 
the material tabernacle and mercy-seat, the symbols 
of the true. 


> 
a] a 2 Ἁ 
20 Kai καϑ' ὅσον οὐ χωρὶς ὁρκωμοσίας, (οἱ μὲν γὰρ 
x , a ~ 4 
21 χωρὶς ὁρκωμοσίας εἰσὶν ἱερεῖς γεγονότες " ὁ δὲ 
\ \ ~ f \ Ms 
μετὰ ὁρκωμοσίας, Ota TOU λέγοντος πρὸς αὐτὸν" 
” / Ἀ a] / ‘ 
“@uoos κύριος, καὶ οὐ μεταμεληϑησεταε σὺ 
3 7~ \ if 
ἑερεὺς εἰς tov alave κατὰ τὴν taki Μελχεσε- 
9 “4 Wie \ ~ , r lA 
22 δέκ᾽.) xara τοσοῦτον κρείττονος διαϑήκης yé- 
23 yovey ἔγγυος Ἰησοῦς. Καὶ of μὲν πλείονές stot 
4 ~ \ \ r r 
γεγονότες ἱερεῖς, διὰ τὸ ϑανάτῳ κωλυεσϑαε παρώ- 
r ὰ c ͵ \ \ r tt 3 ‘ a 
24 μέγνεεν " ὁ δέ, διὰ TO μένεεν αὐτὸν εἰς TOY αἰῶνα, 
25 ΕΣ qt »” \ © “4 + ow κ 74 
ἀπαράβατον ἔχει τὴν ἑερωσύνην" ὅϑεν καὶ σώζειν 
5 ᾿ r uP 2 
sig τὸ παντελὲς δύναταε τοὺς προςερχομένους δὲ 
~ ~ ~ Γ ~ ‘ > / 
αὐτοῦ τῷ ϑεῷ, πάντοτε ζῶν εἰς τὸ évruyzavew 
ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν. 


Vv. 20-22. These verses contain the author's 
second distinct head of argument, to show the supe- 
riority of Christ’s dispensation. The institution of his 
priesthood with the solemnity of an oath, which was 
wanting to the appointment of the Aaronic, shows 
that his was a more important appointment, and there- 


HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. vv. 20—92: 275 


fore, that his was a better testament. Human beings 
attach the solemnity of oaths to the more important 
of their transactions. God’s word is of itself as infal- 
lible and immutable as any oath can make it. But 
God accommodates himself, to a certain extent, in his 
dealings with his Church, to the more infirm and 
human modes of thought to which our imperfection 
confines us. Hence, we understand that God intended 
to intimate the supremacy of the Messiah over all 
other priests, when he announced his appointment 
with these solemn words. The fact that the Apostle, 
an infallible expositor, draws this argument from this 
circumstance, favours the highest theory of the inspi- 
ration of the Scriptures. It seems to indicate that we 
are to consider every trait of the sacred language, 
every phrase, every word, as placed on record by a 
divine intention, and as having its meaning. 

Καὶ καϑ' ὅσον οὐ χωρὶς δρκωμοσίας. 'These 
words form an elliptical member of the period. We 
must supply from the correlative member of the sen- 
tence, γέγονεν ἔγγνος Ἰησοῦς, ‘And in so far as Jesus 
hath been made sponsor not without an oath-taking, 
...80 far hath he been made sponsor of a better cove- 
nant. All which comes between this protasis and 
apodosis is parenthetic, and is introduced to confirm 
the assertion of the first member, that Christ, in his 
appointment, was honoured with the peculiar formal- 
ity of an oath. 

οὗ μὲν γὰρ is the antithesis of 6 δέ, “For they 
(Aaronic priests) were made priests without swearing, 


276 HEBREWS, OHAP. VII. vv. 20--22, 


but He (Jesus) with swearing.” And this is again 
confirmed by the same quotation from Ps, 110: 4. 
This quotation has before been used by the author to 
prove that Christ’s priestly office possessed the pecu- 
liarity of Melchisedek’s: it is now used to show the 
other point. 

éyyvos. This word occurs only here in the New 
Test. and is of rare occurrence in the classics. Its 
etymology is obscure (some deriving it from ἐν yvior, 
and some supposing an affinity to the adj. ἔγγυς), but 
its usage, and still more, the usage of its kindred 
words, ἐγγύη, ἐγγύησες, ἐγγνάω, &e. fix its meaning as 
“a surety.” <A surety is one who engages for another, 
so as to secure the performance of that for which he 
is bound, with the understanding that he shall per- 
form for him, where he fails. Christ is our surety to 
God, to pay the debt both of obedience and suffering 
which we owe. To any covenant there are two par- 
ties; and when the sponsor or surety of that covenant 
is spoken of, the question arises, for which of the par- 
ties he engages, or whether for both. Thus (if the 
unworthiness of the illustration may be pardoned), in 
a bet, the stakeholder is alike surety to both parties 
in the covenant. It has been discussed whether Christ 
is also a surety for God to his people, to secure to 
them the promises. It must be answered that, in the 
sense of making good to Christians God’s deficiences, 
he is not. For God’s faithfulness, grace, and mercy, 
are entire in themselves, and cannot fail, or be made 
more secure. But the Scriptures do clearly hold forth 


HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. v. 238. 277 


the idea that Christ is a pledge to His people of God’s 
faithfulness to fulfil his promises in all their amplitude. 
Rom. 8: 82, “He that spared not his own Son, but de- 
livered him up for us all, how shall he not with him 
also freely give us all things?” 2 Cor. 1: 20, “ For 
all the promises of God in Him are yea, and in Him 
amen, unto the glory of God by us.” The context 
here shows that the first is the proper sense of the 
word in this place. Christ is here called our surety, 
to pay our debt to God. The author is here magnify- 
ing the priestly office of Christ, of which, sacrifice for 
the people, and intercession based thereon, are the 
essential parts. The meaning of δεαϑήκη, “ dispensa- 
tion,” may be seen well explained in the usual Lexicons. 

V. 23. This verse introduces the Apostle’s third 
consideration showing the superiority of Christ’s priest- 
hood; the perpetuity and eternity of it, and the con- 
sequent advantage his people derive from it. Here 
again we have an antithesis between of μὲν (the 
Aaronic priests) on the one hand, and ὁ δὲ (Christ) 
on the other hand. Calvin’s translation of of μεὲν 
πλείονές εἰσε γεγονότες ἱερεῖς, is preferable to Stuart's. 
The former renders, “ Et ili quidem plures facti fue- 
runt sacerdotes;” the latter, “Those priests, also, are 
many.” ‘The position of words in the original indi- 
cates that the author’s meaning is substantially this: 
‘ Again, these, ὦ number of them, were made priests on 
account of their being prevented by death from con- 
tinuing.” The succession of Aaronic priests is here in- 
tended, and not the number of cotemporary priests at 


218 HEBREWS, OHAP. VII. v. 24. 


any one time. This is manifest from the reason as- 
signed for their number, dca τὸ ϑανάτῳ κωλύεσθαι 
παραμένειν. There were many priests cotemporary 
with each other; and it is also true that the whole 
A\aronic institute is embraced in the mind of the Apos- 
tle, when he contrasts the Jewish priesthood with the 
Christian ; for as a whole it all prefigured Christ. But 
yet, the Jewish high-priest was more specially the 
type of the Messiah, and is here more particularly in 
the view of the Apostle. It is the long and numerous 
succession of these priests, a succession the result and 
evidence of their mortality, and therefore of their 
feebleness, which he contrasts with the glorious per- 
manence of a priesthood in which the incumbent is 
eternal and indefectible. - 

V. 24. ὁ δέ, Ove τὸ μένειν, κιτ.λ. These words we 
regard, with Kuinoél, Bloomfield, and others, as indi- 
cating the perpetuity of Christ’s life simply, and not 
his priesthood. The latter idea is a true one, and it is 
expressed in the subsequent clause; which would cre- 
ate a tautology if we supposed it also expressed in the 
first. And the language of the 25th verse, where the 
idea of the 24th is amplified, clearly shows that the 
reference of μέγνεεν αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα is to Christ’s 
existence simply. There, his ability to save unto the 
uttermost is said to arise from the fact that he is πών»- 
τοτὲ ζῶν. Nor is it necessary to suppose a reference 
to the perpetuity of Christ’s priesthood in the former 
clause, in order to carry out more fully the antithesis 
with ν. 23, as is urged by Stuart; for we are not at all 


HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. v. 25. 279 


obliged to understand the clause dca τὸ ϑανάτῳ κω- 
λύεσθαε παραμένειν, as meaning that the Jewish 
priests were prevented by death from continuing 
priests. The meaning of that verse is, that this 
priesthood exhibited a numerous succession, because 
death forbade individuals to remain (in existence). 

ἀπαράβατον ἔχεε τὴν ἑερωσύνην. Christ, on ac- 
count of his eternity, “holds the priesthood untrans- 
mitted.” tis a priesthood which does not pass down 
through successive hands. Theophylact explains it by 
ἀδιαδόχον, Calvin by tmmutabile, and the English ver- 
sion by ‘unchangeable’? The meaning first given is 
the correct one. The Apostle’s argument here for the 
superiority of Christ, is substantially the same with 
that by which he proved the superiority of His type, 
Melchisedek, in v. 8. There, it was argued that the 
Jewish tithe-receivers were mortal; but of this royal 
and peculiar one it ‘was testified that he liveth.’ Here 
the same contrast in Christ’s favour is expanded. 

V. 25. odev. The author now carries the argu- 
ment farther than it could have been extended in the 
case of the type, for he has dropped the type and ex- 
pressly introduced the substance, Christ. He shows 
that this unfailing existence and perpetual priesthood 
of Christ, imply the all-sufficiency of his offices for his 
people. This is the crowning stone to the structure 
of the third argument for His superiority. 

εἰς τὸ παντελὲς is by some made to qualify owfeer 
(“He is able to save completely”), as Calvin, Stuart, 
and the English version. Others, as Kuinoél, regard 


280 HEBREWS, OHAP. VII. v. 25. 


it as qualifying δύναταε, deriving thus the sense, ‘He 
is forever able to save” ‘The classic usage of the 
phrase εἰς τὸ παντελὲς (as well as that of the New 
Test. which is limited to this verse, and Luke 18: 11), 
favours the sense of completeness as to degree (‘com- 
pletely, ‘entirely’), rather than that of unending du- 
ration. Bloomfield refers the phrase as a qualificative 
to both the verbs, to σώζεεν in the sense of ‘ entirely, 
‘completely, and also to dvvcrez in the sense of ‘for- 
ever. To us, it seems more natural to attach it to the 
former, and in its usual sense of ‘ completely, or in 
that almost identical sense of the English version, “ to 
the uttermost ;” which is, etymologically, an apt and 
correct representation of εἰς πῶν τέλος. But adopting 
this sense, we by no means lose the implied truth that 
Christ ministers a never-ending salvation. A complete 
salvation for an immortal being, is of course unending. 
Its completeness implies this. 

τοὺς προφερχομένους τῷ sa. This phrase ex- 
presses the believing on Christ as our surety and medi- 
ator with God. Its sense is abundantly illustrated by 
such passages as John 5:40, ov ϑέλετε ἐλϑεῖν πρὸς 
Me, ἵνα ζωὴν ἔχητε. 

πάντοτε ζῶν. These words are correctly rendered 
by the English version (“ seeing He ever liveth”), asa 
ease of that Greek idiom which expresses by the par- 
ticiple, construed with the noun of the leading propo- 
sition, the dependent proposition which states the 
ground or reason of the former. 

évruyzyavey. The simple and primary meaning 


HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. V. 25. 281 


of this verb is ‘to meet.’ Thence it has the sense of 
‘meeting to supplicate one.’ In some instances of the 
New Test. usage of the verb, this supplication is for 
the third person, viz. Rom. 8: 26, “The Spirit itself 
maketh intercessions for us (ὑπερεντυγχάνεε ὑπὲρ 
ἡμῶν) with groanings,” &e.; 8:27, “He maketh inter- 
cession for the saints” (ἐντυγχάνει ὑπὲρ ἁγίων); 8: 
34, “Christ ... who also maketh intercession for us.” 
In other instances, the supplication is against the per- 
son who is the object of it; as Acts 25: 24, “ Ye see 
this man (Paul) about whom all the multitude of the 
Jews have dealt with me (ἐνέτυχόν joc), both at Je- 
rusalem and here;” Rom. 11: 2, “ Wot ye not what 
the Scripture saith of Elias, how he maketh interces- 
sion to God against Israel?” (ὡς ἐντυγχάνει τῷ ϑεῷ 
κατὰ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ.) ence the verb came to mean 
specifically, ‘to intercede for,’ ‘to act as advocate for 
one. This office is ascribed to Christ here, in 9: 24 
below, in Rom. 8: 84, in John 14: 16, and by implica- 
tion in 1 John 2:1. The office is applied to the Holy 
Spirit in John 14: 16, 15: 26, 16: 7 (6 παράκλητορ), 
and in Rom. 8: 26,27. The reader may, if he pleases, 
consult Hodge on the passage last cited; Knapp’s 
Scripta Varii Argumenti, and Biblical Repertory, vol. 
i. pp. 237-264. 


26 Τοιοῦτος yao ἡμῖν & ἐν GOZLEQEUS, ὅσιος 
VEO ἡμῖν ἑπρέὲπὲεν AOYLEQEVS, οσέος, 
27 2 la Ἂς Ὁ 
ακάᾶκος, ἀμίαντος, “ἐχωρεσμένος ἀπὸ τῶν ἀμαρ- 
~ x c [4 me ~ Ϊ 2 
τωλῶν, καὶ ὑψηλότερος τῶν οὐρανῶν γενομεγος " 


282 HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. V. 26. 


ye [4] >] » ϑ' c 4 > F , cr , is > 
ὃς οὐκ ἔχεε καϑ' ἡμέραν ἀνάγκην, ὥςπερ OL ἄρχεε- 
esis, πρότερον ὑπὲρ τῶν ἰδίων ὡμαρτεῶν ϑυσίας 
4 » ~ ~ ~ ~ > 
ἀναφέρειν, ἔπειτα τῶν τοῦ λαοῦ" τοῦτο γὰρ 
Ὕ ’ , © \ ? , c uf 
28 ἐποίησεν ἐφάπαξ, ἑαυτὸν avevéyxas. Ὁ vouos 
\ , > ~ 
yao ἀνϑρώπους xadiornow ἀρχεερεῖς, ἔχοντας 
ld / ~ U ~ \ 
ἀσϑένεεαν" ὁ λόγος δὲ τῆς ὁρκωμοσίας τῆς μετὰ 
‘ ͵ ‘ ᾿ \ he ΄ 
τὸν νόμον, υἱὸν εἰς TOY LOVE τετελεεω μένον. 


V. 26. Τοιοῦτος γάρ. Both the pronoun and the 
conjunction point to v. 25, and afford a graceful and 
easy transition to the Apostle’s fourth argument, drawn 
from the sinlessness of Christ. γὰρ introduces a 
ground or reason for the character asserted of Christ 
in the previous verse: ‘ He was thus (better than the 
Aaronic hierarchy) an ever-living and complete Sa- 
viour, for such a High-Priest became_us.’ But the 
author, while he points back to the traits of Christ’s 
character by τοιοῦτος, proceeds to add other traits, 
even in the same sentence, which are new grounds of 
proof for his pre-eminence. 

᾿ἔπρεπεν. This verb here signifies a moral fitness 
and necessity. We have already seen, in ch. 2: 10 
above, an instance of its similar use: “It became 
Him... in bringing many sons unto glory,” &e. The 
Apostle here intimates, for purposes hortatory as well 
as argumentative, that Christ was perfectly adapted to 
the exigencies of our condition, adding, as other requi- 
sites in which He differed toto calo from the Aaronic 
priests, that He was without taint or sin, removed 
from sinners in his purity (but not in his intercourse 
or sympathies), exalted above the heavens, needing no 


HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. v. 26. 283 


sacrifice for himself like Aaron and his sons, but offer- 
ing one perfect and sufficient for his people. 

χεχωρισμένος ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν. The prece- 
ding words, ὅσεος, ἄκακος, ἐμέαντος, state the partic- 
ulars in which Christ was separated from our sinful 
race. The latter phrase is inclusive of the former: 
“He is holy, harmless, undefiled, distinguished (in 
these respects) from those for whom he intercedes.” 
Calvin here remarks: “Membrum istud, ‘segregatus a 
peccatoribus,’ reliqua comprehendit. Fuit enim aliqua 
Aaronis sanctitas, et innocentia, et puritas, sed nonnisi 
ad exiguum duntaxat modulum; multis enim maculis 
foedate erant. Christus autem, qui exemptus est 6 
vulgo hominum, solus est a peccato immunis. Ideo 
vera sanctitas et innocentia in eo solo reperientur. 
Neque enim segregatus a nobis dicitur, quod nos a 
societate sua repellat: sed quia hoc habet pre nobis 
eximium, ut vacuus sit omni immunditia.” 

ὑψηλότερος τῶν οὐρανῶν γενόμενος. This phrase 
seems to imply not merely exaltation above all crea- 
tures, for this is argued throughout the whole of ch. 1, 
and in ch. 2: 6-9; but it seems to have special refer- 
ence to the fact, that while the Aaronic high-priest 
ministered on earth, Christ has gone on our behalf 
into the heavenly sanctuary. This idea is in many 
places made prominent in this Epistle. In ch. 4:14 it 
is said, “ We have a great High-Priest, that is passed 
into the heavens.” In 8:1, 2, “ We have such a High- 
Priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of 
the majesty in the heavens; a minister of the sanctu- 


284 HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. v. 27. 


ary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched 
and not man.” In 8:4, “If he were on earth, he 
should not be a priest.” In 9:11, “Christ... is a 
High-Priest of good things to come, by a greater and 
more perfect tabernacle,” &e. And in 9: 24, “ Christ 
is not entered into the holy places made with hands, 
which are the figures of the true, but into heaven 
itself.” It seems therefore more reasonable to under- 
stand these words in the same sense. And this is 
especially confirmed by the language of 8: 1, 2, “ Now 
of the things which we have spoken, this is the sum,” 
&e. Christ’s being at the right hand of the throne of 
the majesty in the heavens, in the true tabernacle 
which the Lord pitched and not man, is one of the 
points taught in the preceding chapters. What words 
in any chapter before the eighth, more naturally ex- 
press this idea than the words under remark ? 

V. 27. xa? ἡμέραν. Some understand these 
words in a loose and popular sense, as not meaning 
literally every day, but only ‘repeatedly,’ ‘with con- 
siderable frequency ;’ and they refer to Mark 14: 49, 
and Acts 16: 5, as similar instances: “I was daily 
with you in the temple, teaching, and ye took me not” 
(xa? ἡμέραν); “And so were the churches estab- 
lished in the faith, and increased in number daily.” 
This is the sense adopted by Kuinoél. But some 
others, among whom is Stuart, adopt this view: that 
daily sacrifices were offered, not by the high-priest 7m 
propria persona, but by his subordinate agents, for 
the sins of the whole people, among whom the high- 


HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. v. 27. 285 


priest himself was included, and that this is the sense 
in which there was a sacrifice for his imperfections 
every day. But the phraseology evidently excludes 
this idea, refers to the ritual of the great day of 
atonement (see Levit. 16: 3-34), and implies that it 
was the personal act of the high-priest himself, which 
is here described: ‘He offers sacrifices, first for his 
own sin (τῶν ἐδίων ὡμαρτεῶν), then for those of the 
people.’ Philo is cited as saying, ἀρχεερεὺς xara τοὺς 
vouous, suyas δὲ καὶ ϑυσίας τέλων καϑ' ἐκάστην ἡ μέ- 
ραν. We incline strongly to regard this as one of the 
frequent instances of historical license, indulged by the 
Jewish writers of Philo’s age. The law, which he says 
commanded this (κατὼ τοὺς νόμους), is certainly silent 
concerning it, so far as we now can see. Hebr. 9: 6,7 
seems to imply that the common priests performed all 
the offices of common days, and the high-priest only 
sacrificed in person on the day of atonement. We 
would therefore give to xc?’ ἡμέραν a sense somewhat 
different from both those proposed above. It signifies 
the stated recurrence of an act on és recurring day. 
This does not signify that that is every day. After 
we have said that the high-priest performed these rites 
‘day by day,’ it still remains to be settled which days 
and how many were appropriated periodically to them. 
The sense is that of a periodical repetition simply. It 
may be illustrated by Matt. 27:15, Kara δὲ ἑορτὴν 
εἰώϑεε ὁ ἡγεμὼν ἀπολύειν ἕνα τῷ ὄχλῳ δέσμιον, κ-τ.λ. 
“ Now at that feast the governor was wont (annually) 
to release unto the people a prisoner.” We might 


286 HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. Vv. 28. 


with propriety translate this, “ Hom feast to feast the 
governor was wont,” &c. And yet it is not every 
feast which is intended. 

V. 28. Ὁ νόμος γάρ, x.r.4. The νόμος here 
intended is the general law instituting the Mosaic 
economy, the same which is intended in v. 18 above. 
The particle γὰρ introduces this statement as the 
ground or reason of the assertions of v. 27: ‘ Aaronic 
high-priests were thus compelled to offer sacrifices for 
themselves, before offering for the people, because the 
law constituted dmperfect beings high-priests; but 
Christ had no such necessity, because the word of the 
oath-swearing (Ps. 110: 4), which was after the 
(Mosaic) law, constituted the Son High-Priest, who 
hath been perfected forever.’ - 

τῆς μετὰ τὸν νόμον. Christ’s appointment was 
announced with solemn oath, after the Mosaic institu- 
tions, as to time. The author seems here to intimate, 
that this fact contained a proof that Christ’s priest- 
hood was designed to supersede the Levitical. ‘Thus, 
as was indicated in the commentary on vy. 11 above, 
the introduction of a new and different priesthood 
argues the inefficiency of the previous one. And this 
is still more distinctly urged in vv. 15-19, where the 
abrogation of the Aaronic institute on account of its. 
weakness and unprofitableness is clearly asserted, and 
its replacing by a better hope, that of Christ. The 
words μετὰ τὸν νόμον are therefore introduced here 
to make an intimation of this fact in passing. 

τετελειωμένον. This word is rendered by the 


HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. v. 28. 287 


English version, “consecrated” (“who is consecrated 
forevermore”). In the Analysis we have rendered it 
“olorified.” We shall apply here the general sense 
fixed for this word in the comment on ch. 2: 10, and 
so often cited, in that phase of its meaning which 
this context requires. Christ is here declared to be 
brought to the completeness of that condition which 
was proposed in this case. The matter in hand is his 
priesthood. His ‘perfecting’ is, therefore, his receiv- 
ing all those powers and graces which are proper toa . 
perfectly efficient high-priest, and that forever—his 
eternal glorification as a complete High-Priest. 


SBAPTER. VI. 


ANALYSIS. 


Havrne given many reasons for the superior order 
of Christ’s priesthood, and his superior qualifications 
for the office, the Apostle proceeds further to show 
the superior excellence of this priesthood in view of 
the higher sanctuary in which it is exercised, vv. 1-5, 
with functions corresponding to the better. dispensa- 
tion with which it is connected, vv. 6-13. 

Of the matter in hand, the chief thing is, that we 
have so excellent a High-Priest, who is seated at the 
right hand of God, a minister in the sanctuary of the 
true, even the heavenly tabernacle, vv.1, 2. A minister 
or officiator, for (yae, v. 3) every high-priest is ap- 
pointed to make offerings ; in the heavenly sanctuary, 
for (γάρ, v. 4) He could not exercise the office upon 
earth, since there were priests (to whose tribe and 
order he did not belong) appointed by the-law, who 
served in the tabernacle which was but a type of the 
heavenly, as we learn from the charge to Moses when 
about to build it, vv. 8-5. But (δὲ) now, instead 
of officiating upon earth, in the type which Moses 
caused to be built (compare μέν, v. 4), He hath 
obtained a more excellent ministry, corresponding to 
the superior dispensation of which He is the mediator, 
y. 6. The superiority of this dispensation he proves, 
(γὰρ) by the fact that, the first being faulty, a place 


CHAP. VIII.—ANALYSIS. 289 


was sought for a second, v. 7. This he shows by a 
quotation from Jer. 31: 31-84, in which the first dis- 
pensation is repudiated because the people did not 
keep it, and God was displeased with them; in other 
words, under it they continued rebellious and God’s 
anger still burned; while a second is promised, which 
shall have the effect to write the law of God on their 
hearts, and to unite them and Him in the closest οου- 
enant; under which the knowledge of God shall be 
universal, and sins shall be wholly remitted, vv. 8-12. 
Upon this quotation the author remarks: In calling 
this dispensation new, he represents the first as old, 
and therefore (by general analogy) near its dissolution, 
v. 13. 
19 


290 HEBREWS, CHAP. VIII. Vv. l. 


COMMENTARY. 


' pet ~ ld ~ 

ΝΠ]. 1 Κεφάλαιον δὲ ἐπὶ τοῖς λεγομένοις " τοιοῦ- 
La ‘ , f Ὕ ~ ~ 
τον ἔχομεν ἀρχεερέα, ὃς ἐκάϑεσεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ 

Γ - ‘ Ἴ ~ ~ ~ 
2 ϑρονου τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, τῶν 
c , Ul ~ ~ ~ ? ~ a 
aytov hecrovoyos, καὶ τῆς σκηνῆς τῆς ἀληϑεγῆς, ἣν 
» - c Γ΄ Ἀ » ” ~ ‘ 
3 ἔπηξεν ὁ κύριος, καὶ οὐκ ἄνϑρωπος. (Πᾶς yae 
‘ I ~ / 
ἀρχεερεὺς εἰς TO προςφέρεεν δῶρα TE καὶ ϑυσίας 
, ca ~ » ~ 

καϑίσταται, ὃϑεν ἀναγκαῖον ἔχεεν ti καὶ τοῦτον, 
4 [4] ἀξ ΤᾺΝ ) EF AN \ ee De ᾿ a "δ᾽ Ε}} ΟΥ̓ 
ὃ προςφενέγκῃ.) Et μὲν γὰρ ἣν ἐπὶ γῆς, οὐδ᾽ av Hy 

7, ” ~ f ~ / ‘ 
ἑερεύς, ὄντων τῶν ἑερέων TOY προςφερόντων HATE 


Or 


Ἂν, / A ~ ’ 4 , ~ 

τὸν νόμον τὰ δῶρα, οἵτενες ὑποδείγματε καὶ σκεᾷ 
Lf ~ γ \ , 

λατρευουσε τῶν ἐπουρανίων, zatas κεχρημαάτεσταε 
Μηωῦσῆς, μέλλων ἐπιτελεῖν τὴν σκηνήν" “ὅρα ya 

Ἰωύσῆς, μέλλων ἕπετελεῖν τὴν σκηνὴν " “ opu yag, 

, , ’ \ ‘\ hi ~ \ if 

φησί, ποεησῃς MaVTE κατὰ τὸν τύπον τὸν δειχϑέντα 
GOL ἕν τῷ OQEL.” 


V.1. Κεφάλαιον. This word we will ποὺ trans- 
late ‘recapitulation’ or ‘summary,’ for there is none in 
this chapter. Calvin seems to take the word in the 
sense of ‘sum, ‘substance.’ “ Pergit quidem,in eodem 
argumento; sed quia variis rationibus pugnat, ideo 
hance admonitionem inseruit, ut intentos ad scopum lec- 
tores teneret.” But the most and best of the commen- 
tators, ancient (as Suidas, Theophylact, Theodoret), 
and modern (as Stuart, Michaelis, Storr, &c.), trans- 
late the word, ‘the chief, or principal point. This 

is better sustained by the context, for the point here 
introduced has not before been insisted on in this Epis- 
tle, though glanced at in several places. Such passing 


HEBREWS, CHAP. VIII. v. 1. 291 


allusions may be seen in 4: 14 (“A great High-Priest . 
that is passed into the heavens”), 6: 20 (Christ “the 
forerunner is for us entered within the vail”), and at 
the conclusion of the preceding chapter. The adjunct, 
ἐπὶ τοῖς λεγο μένοες, also requires the meaning assigned 
above to κεφάλαιον, for it does not bring the idea of 
something before stated and now to be recounted, but 
of something additional. Virgil (Atneid I. 341, 2), 
uses summa in this sense. most obviously ; for it is at 
the beginning of the recital. A recapitulation must 
be at the end: 


Longa est injuria; longx 
Ambages; sed summa sequar fastigia rerum. 


ἐπὶ τοῖς λεγομένοις. éat seems here not only to 
denote ‘addition’ (in the sense of preter, which is 
assioned to it by the Lexicons), but to refer to the 
superior importance of the point now introduced for 
discussion, over and above the rest. Hence the matter 
so added is termed χεφάλαεον. τοῖς λεγομένοες may 
be understood as referring to the whole previous dis- 
cussion from chap. 5 onward; or possibly the words 
may be understood more specifically as meaning the 
points laid down in 5: 1-4; viz. the qualifications of a 
priest in general. But the fact that the participle is 
in the present tense is less favourable to the latter 
view, for the author thus indicates that he intends 
matters of present discussion by the phrase. The 
sense first stated is therefore the easier and more ap- 


292 HEBREWS, CHAP. VIII. Vv. 2. 


propriate one: ‘Over and above the matters we are 
speaking of, this is the chief thing, that we have such 
a High-Priest,’ &e. 

τοιοῦτον ὠρχεερέα. Some refer rocovroy to what 
precedes: ‘We have such a High-Priest as has been 
described in ch. 7, one of a different order from Levi, 
and superior even to Levi’s great progenitor, Abra- 
ham; one consecrated with the solemnity of an oath ; 
one who is eternal and without cessation or succession 
in his functions; and one who is personally spotless 
and needs no personal atonement.’ But this exposi- 
tion would give to κεφάλαιον substantially the mean- 
ing of a recapitulation, which, as we have seen, is not 
its proper sense. It is better to understand the demon- 
strative pronoun as pointing to what follows: ‘We 
have such a High-Priest, viz. one who hath set down 
at the right hand,’ &e. 

τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἕν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. We have here 
the abstract for the concrete, ‘the majesty’ for ‘Him 
who is majestic.’ The whole phrase is identical with 
that in ch. 1: 3, to which the reader is referred for 
exposition of it. 

V.2. ἁγίων. This word undoubtedly signifies 
‘the most holy place;’ a sense equivalent to ‘sanctu- 
ary,’ which is the English version. Its usage in other 
parts of the Epistle settles this. In 9: 8 it can have 
no other sense consistently with the context, μήπω 
πεφανερῶσϑαι τὴν τῶν ἁγέων ὁδόν, for the reference is 
to the fact that none but the high-priest, and he but 
once yearly, could enter within the vail. In 10:19 


HEBREWS, CHAP. VIII. v. 9. 293 


we read, Ἔχοντες οὖν, ἀδελφοί, παῤῥησίαν εἰς τὴν 
εἰξοδον τῶν ἁγίων ἐν τῷ αἵματε Ἰησοῦ. In 18: 11 it 
is said, εἰςφέρεταε.... τὸ aia περὶ ἁμαρτίας εἰς τὰ 
ἅγεα διὰ τοῦ ἀρχεερέως. In 9:3 it is called eye 
«ἁγίων. It is used, as appears from the places cited, 
sometimes for the type, and sometimes for the anti- 
type; in this place for the latter. 

καὶ τῆς σκηνῆς τῆς ἀληϑενῆς. These words may 
be understood as only explicative of the preceding: 
‘A minister of the holy place, even of the true taber- 
nacle.” Or else we may, with more propriety, explain 
them as truly additional, giving zai its usual additive 
meaning, so that the expression will constitute a hen- 
diadis. The adjective ὠληϑενῆς may then be con- 
ceived as qualifying both σκηνῆς and ἁγέων, the former 
more immediately, but the latter also more remotely. 
The defining clause, ἣν ἔπηξεν ὃ χύρεος, καὶ οὐκ ἄν- 
ϑρωπος, is evidently constructed with reference to the 
structure of the lower and typical sanctuary. This 
was ὦ tent pitched, or set up. Hence God, the creator 
of the highest heaven, is said to have pitched it also, 
only in allusion to the former. 

V.3. Πᾶς yao. The most obvious and natural 
connection of thought here, is that which regards γὰρ 
as referring to Ascroveyos, as is indicated in the Anal- 
ysis. The Apostle proves that Christ does actually 
perform the functions of a priest at the spiritual altar : 
‘Christ has a sacerdotal ministry; for every high- 
priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices’ The 
whole of v. 3 may with propriety be treated as a 


294 HEBREWS, OHAP. VIII. v. 4. 


parenthesis, as is done in Vater’s edition, which is in- 
troduced in this Commentary. 

V.4. Ei μὲν yao. Here γὰρ evidently intro- 
duces the proof of the other branch of the Apostle’s 
statement in vy. 2, as to the place in which Christ’s 
sacerdotal ministry is exercised : ‘It is in the true, heavy- 
enly sanctuary ; for if he were on earth, he should not 
be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts 
according to the law.’ Such is evidently the Apostle’s 
drift. This is, so to speak, the main line of thought, 
and hence the propriety of making ν. 3 parenthetical, 
inasmuch as it is only subordinate in the present con- 
text. Vy. 9 and 10 exhibit a parailel use of the par- 
ticle ὅτε. In vv. 8, 9, two points are presented in the 
author’s statement concerning a change of covenant 
between God and his church, as foretold by Jeremi- 
ah: first, that the old covenant was adjudged faulty, 
and second, that a new and different one was substi- 
tuted. The ground of the first statement is introduced 
by ὅτε (v. 9, last clauses, Ore αὐτοὶ οὐκ ἐνέμειναν ἕν τῇ 
διωϑήκῃ μου, #.t-A.), and that of the second is also in- 
troduced by the same particle, in v. 10: ὅτε αὕτη ἡ 
διαϑήκη ἣν διαϑήσομαε, 2.7.2. Such a connexion of 
sentences can only be made easy by placing the first 
ground, which stands between the second point and 
its ground, in a parenthetic position. 

ὄντων τῶν ἑερέων, x.r.4. The words τῶν ἑερέων 
are wanting in some important ancient manuscripts, 
the Vulgate, and other versions. The sense is not made 
worse or less distinct by its omission. The scope is 


HEBREWS, CHAP. VIII. Vv. 5. 295 


obvious: ‘If Christ were on the earth (if this were the 
scene of his ministerial functions), he had not been a 
priest, since there are (persons) who offer gifts accord- 
ing to the law. This mere, earthly, typical, inferior 
priesthood has been already provided for, its rules are 
fixed, and the order of men defined who fill its func- 
tions ; and according to those rules, Christ Jesus could 
not be one of them, not being of the right tribe. The 
fact, therefore, that he has priestly functions, a fact be- 
fore proved, shows that his priesthood is in a different 
sanctuary. 

V. 5. οἵτενες Unodstypare, κιτ.Δ. While the 
Apostle excludes Christ from the earthly tabernacle, 
he asserts and proves that this is only a type and 
shadow of the heavenly. 

vxodelyace. This word is used in Hebr. 4: 11, 
and 2 Pet. 2: 6, in the sense of ‘example’ (“after the 
same example of unbelief”—“ making Sodom and Go- 
morrah an example unto those that after should live 
ungodly”). In the verse under remark, and in 9: 28, 
it has the meaning of type; and in 9: 24, the succeed- 
ing verse, the word eyriruxa is used as its synonyme. 
Aquila’s version of the Old Test. employs it as a trans- 
lation of ΤΏ, τὼ Deut. 4:17, “the likeness of any 
beast that’is on the earth.” 

καὶ oxig. By this word is intended ‘a shadow, 
an ‘adumbration.’ In Col. 2: 17 it is contrasted with 
σῶμα, “ Holy days, new moons, sabbath-days ... are a 
shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” 
In Hebr. 10: 1 it is opposed to εἰἴχων, “For the law 


290 HEBREWS, OHAP. VIII. Vv. ὅ. 


having a shadow of good things to come, and not the 
very image of the things,” &e. 

ἐπιτελεῖν. This verb includes both the ideas of 
‘finishing,’ ‘making,’ and ‘performing.’ In 9:6 below 
it is used in the sense of ‘ performing, without the idea 
of completion prominently presented: of ἑερεῖς τὰς 
λατρείας ἐπιτελοῦντες. The same phase of meaning is 
seen in Luke 18: 82, ἐάσεις ἐπετελῶ. But in Phil. 1: 
6 the idea of completion is the prominent one: 6 évag- 
ξώμενος . «. ἐπετελέσεε ἄχρες ἡμέρας Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. 
The meaning in this passage is nearest akin to the first 
two. 

κατὰ τὸν τύπον, κιτ.2. This language does not de- 
termine the modus of the exhibition which was made 
to Moses, of the shapes and arrangements to be adopt- 
ed in the tabernacle and its furniture, when he was 
forty days in Mount Sinai. It only assures us that 
such an exhibition was then distinctly made. It may 
have been by direct inspiration, by verbal description, 
or by figure. ‘The latter is certainly the most natural 
import of the words. The Hebrew word rendered 
τύπον in Exod. 25:40 (whence the Apostle here 
quotes), is M22m (from 722). Stephen, in his discourse, 
Acts 7:44, employs language equivalent to that of 
Exodus: “That he should make it according to the 
fashion (τύπον) that he had seen.” In 1 Chron. 28: 
12, 19, it is said that David gave Solomon “ the pat- 
tern of all that he had by the Spirit;” and that Da- 
vid said, “ All this the Lord made me understand in 
writing by his hand upon me, even all the works of 


HEBREWS, CHAP. VIII. v. 5. 29% 


this pattern.” The mode of exhibition here indicated 
was probably different. But this is an inquiry more 
curious than useful. The words of the Apostle and of 
Exodus by no means imply that the heavenly sanctu- 
ary is material; they only teach that the forms which 
were exhibited to Moses, after which he built the tab- 
ernacle, were a type of the heavenly. 


6 


7 


8 


9 


10 


11 


12 


ig , , a 
Nuvi δὲ διαφορωτέρας τέτευχε λειτουργίας, σῷ 
r le ? Ud , cr > 
καὶ xositrovos ἔστε διαϑηήκης μεσέτης, ἥτες Ent 
, >) , r \e 
κρείττοσεν ἐπαγγελέαες νενομοϑέτηταε. Εἰ yee ἡ 
ὁ ? U a v > ph ly γ 
πρωτὴ EXELYN ἢν ἄμεμπτος, οὐκ ἂν δευτέρας ἐζη- 
ma id If \ ) - f 
teito τόπος. Meugopuevos yao αὐτοῖς λέγει" 
46? δ - c r A ‘4 Ld Ἀ 
Ἰδοῦ, nusoat ἔρχονταε, λέγεε χύρεος, καὶ συντε- 
r 9», tt \ oT 2 \ ah aN \ τ 2 , 
λέσω ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον ᾿Ισραὴλ καὶ ἐπὲ τὸν οἶκον Ἰούδα 
ῇ I ? \ ὟΝ t \ 
Ocadnxny xawyy* οὐ κατὰ τὴν διαϑήκην, ἣν 
? , τς ~ κι 2 ~ ? > 
ἑποίησα τοῖς πατράσεν αὐτῶν ἕν ἡμέρᾳ ἐπελαβο- 
In ~ ‘ } ~ due ~ 2 \ ? 
feevou μου τῆς χεερὸς αὐτῶν ἐξαγαγεῖν αὐτοὺς &# 
- ) Γ cr 2 κ ἌΡ > ~ 
γῆς Αἰγύπτου, OTe αὐτοὶ οὐδέ ἐνέμεεναν EV TH δια- 
a , \ 2 yA 2 - , fy 
ϑηχὴ μου, κάγω ἡμέλησα αὐτῶν, λέγεε κύρεος " 
cr a c i κι Γ - vv 
ore αὕτη ἡ διαϑήκη, ἣν διωϑήσομαε τῷ οἴκῳ 
> Χ ᾿ \ fee Py > r r / 
Ἰσραὴλ μετὰ τὰς ἡμέρας ἐκείνας, λέγεε χύρεος, 
\ r 2 \ r ~ 
δεδοὺς νόμους μου εἰς τὴν διώνοιαν αὐτῶν, καὶ 
> , 7 ~ > / la » 
ἐπὶ καρδίας «αὐτῶν ἐπειγράψω αὐτούς" καὶ ἔσομαι 
2 - } » 4 7 
αὐτοῖς εἰς peor, καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔσονταί woe εἰς λαόν. 
ve } \ l we Go \ , 
Kai ov μὴ διδάξωσιν ἕκαστος τὸν [πολίτην] 
c ~ 9 \ \ ~ fe 
αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἕκαστος, TOY ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ, λέγων" 
- \ 4 a r Γ a dap 
γνῶϑε τὸν κύριον" ὅτε πάντες εἰδήσουσέ με, ἀπὸ 
~ Ἢ Δ es Ψ r Da es ΄ ra “ἢ 
μεχροῦ [αὐτῶν] ἕως μεγάλου αὐτῶν. Ὅτε ἵλεως 
» ~ > ~ ~ c ~ 
ἔσομαε ταῖς ἀδεκέκες «κὐτῶν, καὶ TOY ἁμαρτιῶν 
3 ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ 
αὐτῶν καὶ τῶν ἀνομεῶν αὐτῶν οὐ μὴ μνησϑῶ 


298 HEBREWS, OHAP. VIII. Vv. 6. 


”’ > ~ ’ U4 4 
18 és.” Ev τῷ λέγεεν καένην, πεπαλαίωκε τὴν πρώ- 
\ / , , 
τὴν" TO δὲ παλαεούμενον καὶ γηραόσκον, ἐγγὺς 
ἀφανεσμοῦ. 


V.6. Nuvi δέ, “But now,” i.e. in Christ’s pres- 
ent exalted state. The particle δὲ here introduces the 
antithesis to μεὲν in v. 4: ‘If, on the one hand, he had 
been upon earth, he had not been a priest; but now, 
on the other hand, he hath had allotted to him a more 
excellent ministry,’ &c., viz. one in the heavenly sane- 
tuary. We give to δεαφορωτέρας its derived sense of 
‘better, ‘superior, asin 1:4 above, where it is said 
of Christ, διαφορώτερον κεκληρονόμησεν ὄνομα. hee 
τουργέας 15 genitive, according to the customary usage 
of τυγχάνω. The object of comparison is the priestly 
ministry in the earthly sanctuary. 

κρείττονος dceedyjxns. The dispensation of Christ 
is called better, as having “better promises.” The 
former dispensation, by its carnal ordinances, removed 
certain civil penalties and legal impurities, but did not 
reach the penalties of the divine law and the corrup- 
tions of the heart. Its services had no avail to avert 
the wrath of God as final Judge, nor to sanctify the 
sinful nature of man. For these purposes, it was in 
itself ἀσϑενῆς καὶ ἀνωφελῆς, as was asserted in 7: 18. 

μεσέτης. ‘This important word is by some etymo- 
logists derived from μέσος -- siz, ‘a go-between,’ and 
by others from μέσος alone, the syllables ery being 
regarded as merely the nominal termination. Whether 
the active idea of ‘going’ is in the word or not, little 


HEBREWS, CHAP. VIII. V. 6. 299 


affects its primary sense, which is obviously that of 
‘one who stands between parties to act for both,’ ‘a 
mediator. The sense in which it is here used is suffi- 
ciently manifest from its use in other places, and from 
the context. In Gal. 3:19, 20, Moses is called the 
μεσίτης between God and the people under the cere- 
monial law, in the sense of énternuntius. In the pas- 
sage under remark, in Hebr. 9: 15, 12: 24, and 1 Tim. 
2: 5, it is applied to the Lord Jesus Christ, and most 
manifestly in each case with the special sense of a sacer- 
dotal mediator, intervening with sacrifice and interces- 
sion, for the reconciliation of God and sinners. In 
9:15 we read, “ And for this cause he is the mediator 
of the new testament (δεαϑήκης καενῆς μεσίτης); 
(viz.) ὅπως, ϑανάτου γενομένου εἰς ἀπολύτρωσεν τῶν 
ἐπὶ τῇ πρώτῃ δικιϑήκῃ παραβάσεων, τὴν ἐπαγγελέαν 
λάβωσεν of κεκλημένοι τῆς αἰωνίον πληρονομίας." 
His priestly work is here stated as the very purpose 
of his mediation. In the passage next cited it is said, 
“Ye are come to Jesus, the mediator of the new cove- 
nant, and to the blood of sprinkling,” &c.; where his 
sacrifice is again made prominent in connexion with 
his mediation. And in the last, “There is one God, 
and one mediator between God and men, the man 
Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all.” The 
meaning of the phrase under remark may also be illus- 
trated by the parallel expression of 7 : 22 above, κρεέτ- 
rovos διαϑήκης éyyvog. As was there seen, the ἔγγνος 
is one who pays the liabilities of those for whom he 
stands. In the case of Christ’s people, a part of these 


900 HEBREWS, CHAP. VIII. Vv. 6. 


liabilities is sacrifice for sin. The sacerdotal charac- 
ter of Christ’s mediation is clear. 

ἐπὶ xosirroow ἐπαγγελίαις. The nature of this ἡ 
superiority has been explained above, in the remarks 
on χρεέττονος διαϑήκης. The preposition here em- 
ployed shows the fundamental nature of these promi- 
ses, upon which the better dispensation “hath been 
instituted.” There is here a parallelism of expression 
to 7:11 above. There, it was said that the people 
had received its institutions ἐπ᾿ αὐτῇ (viz. δεὰ Asvire- 
κῆς ἑερωσύνης). That priesthood was the basis on 
which rested the enjoyment of whatever carnal and 
external benefits the people derived from Mosaic insti- 
tutions. In Hebr. 10: 28 it is said, “ He that despised 
Moses’ law, died without mercy, ἐπὶ δυδὲν ἢ reset μιάρ- 
τυσεν. The sentence rested on the testimony, as its 
basis. So, the new dispensation is founded on these 
better promises. What the promises are, may be dis- 
covered in vy. 10-12 below, viz. that God will put his 
laws into our minds and write them in our hearts, will 
enter into the covenant relation of a Father to us, and 
mercifully forgive our sins. They are summed up in 
justification and sanctification ; and, more briefly, in 
redemption. These are the blessings which the new 
dispensation was designed to secure. 

γενομοϑέτηται. In the New Test. this word oe- 
curs only here and in 7:11 above. The difference of 
subjects gives the verb in the two places a slightly 
different phase of meaning. In 7: 11 the nominative 
is λαύς, ‘the people were instituted, in the sense of: 


HEBREWS, CHAP. VIII. v. Τὶ 301 


‘being provided with a set of institutions. Here, the 
nominative is δεαϑήκη, ‘the dispensation hath been 
instituted,’ in the sense of ‘laying down as law,’ ‘ giv- 
ing law. Hence we should not object to render it, 
with Calvin, ‘promulgatum, or with others, ‘estab- 
lished,’ ‘sanctioned.’ The idea of the passage seems to 
be, ‘that the new dispensation was established upon 
the basis of better promises :’ these were the end to be 
accomplished, the reason of its institution, the ground 
of its establishment, without which it would never 
have been given, and with which it is essentially supe- 
rior to the old dispensation, which had no efficacy in 
itself (see 7: 18), and was chiefly valuable as adum- 
brating this. 

V.%. Ei yao. The conjunction γὰρ here intro- 
duces the proof of the inferiority of the first dispensa- 
tion, which is implied im v. 6: “He (Christ) hath 
obtained a better ministry, and is mediator of a better 
dispensation, founded on better promises.” That is, 
the Aaronic was worse; ‘for (yao), if it had not been, 
it would not have been substituted by a second,’ 

ἄμεμπτος. The Apostle intends by this word, 
‘blameless,’ being ‘ without defect for the great object 
or aim of securing redemption.’ In this sense, the one 
in which bigoted and perverse Jews persisted in sup- 
porting it, it was not blameless: it was chargeable with 
defect. But we are not to understand the Apostle as 
saying that God had instituted a dispensation which 
was faulty for the purposes He had in view. For those 
purposes, which were typical, it was well adapted. 


802 HEBREWS, OHAP. VIII. v. 8. 


ἐζητεῖτο τόπος. The phrase is pregnant, and im- 
plies that room was made for the second, by the abro- 
gation of the first, on account of the superiority of the 
former to the latter. 

V.8. Μεμφόμενος γάρ. Here follows the proof 
that the first dispensation was not ἄμεμπτος. The 
force of the connective, as introducing this proof, is 
easily seen. The evidence is a gospel prophecy from 
Jer. 31: 31-34. It also contains the proof that room 
was sought for a second and better covenant. 

αὐτοῖς. ‘This pronoun belongs more properly to 
λέγεε than to weuqousvoc, with which it is construed 
by the English version, and Calvin. Meugouevog is 
used in evident allusion to ἄμεμπτος, and therefore 
finds its object, by a natural ellipsis, in αὐτῇ, to be 
supplied by the reader, and referring to διαϑήκη, 
which is obviously the subject to ἄμεμπτος. The 
meaning therefore is, ‘Charging defect upon that first 
dispensation, God saith to them’ (the Israelites of Jer- 
emiah’s day), &e. 

διαϑήκην καενήν. In this passage we clearly see 
the use of δεαϑήκη to express those arrangements of 
God with his people, which we call the old and new 
testaments or dispensations. In v. 10 we have the 
sense of the word very clearly manifested, as it flows 
from its etymology, δεαϑϑήκην ἣν δεαϑήσομαε (‘the in- 
stitution which I shall institute’). Compare Aristoph. 
Om. 439. The proof which this quotation presents 
that the former dispensation was charged with defect 
by God, is in the fact that a new one is to be intro- 


HEBREWS, CHAP. VIII. Vv. 9. 303 


duced, unlike the old, and that the old did not secure 
the obedience of the people to God, nor the favour of 
God to them. 

V.9. ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐπελαβομένου μον, 2.7.4. These 
words are a translation of 0772 "pn oa in the He- 
brew; and are the same with which this clause is 
rendered in the Septuagint. The whole quotation 
contains several unimportant variations from the Sep- 
tuagint rendering (which is to be sought in the 38th 
chapter of that version), ‘In the day of my taking 
their hand, &c. The construction should rather be 
accounted a Hebraism, than an anacoluthon; for it is 
a strict imitation of the original. See Winer’s Id. $64, 
p- 406. The word ἡμέρᾳ is to be understood in the 
general sense of ‘time,’ ‘juncture, ‘era.’ If we’should 
give it its literal sense, the only institution whose com- 
mencement could be plausibly fixed on the very day 
the people left Egypt would be the passover. But 
the whole of the Aaronic dispensation is intended, of 
which we may say, with general accuracy, that it was 
instituted at the exodus. 

ὅτε. This conjunction is here not demonstrative, 
but causal. It introduces the reason for God’s making 
a ‘new arrangement,’ not like the old: οὐ κατὰ τὴν 
δειαϑήκην, ἣν ἐποίησα τοῖς πατράσι. 

οὐκ ἐνέμειναν. The Hebrew is, 25 5am 7K, 
‘because they broke,’ ‘ violated, my arrangement.’ The 
Septuagint employs the same translation for this verb. 

“ἀγὼ ἠμέλησα «αὐτῶν. This also is the Septuagint 
rendering for B32 °m>ya "2387. It is worthy of note 


304 HEBREWS, CHAP. VIII. v. 10. 


that the Syriac version gives the same sense. Our 
English version of Jeremiah improperly translates, 
“which my covenant they brake, although I was a 
husband to them.” Gesenius, in his Hebr. Lex. very 
accurately states the meanings of 253 to be, 1. ‘To be 
Lord, 2.‘To become a husband,’ ὃ. “Τὸ look down 
upon ;’ and hence, ‘to disdain, contemn or reject.’ 
The last sense is nearly that given by the Septuagint 
and our Epistle. Others translate this passage, “I was 
their Lord.” Gesenius also translates the passage in 
Jer. 8: 14, p22 "nya "25x 1D, “For I rejected you,” 
which the English version renders, “Turn, oh back- 
shding children, saith the Lord; for Iam married to 
you.” ‘The sense we have given to the citation above, 
is certainly more accordant with the scope of the 
author. 

V.10. ὅτε is here rather illustrative than causal. 
The ‘new dispensation’ had been promised in vy. 8; 
and its nature is here explained. This explanation 
does indeed present somewhat of support or ground 
for the assertion that it was new, and unlike the pre- 
vious one; but yet the force of the connective is rather 
illustrative than logical. 

διδούς, κιτ.Δ. This participle presents a peculiar- 
ity of construction, which has been very variously ex- 
plained. The Hebrew of which it is a translation is 
ΩΣ, This the Septuagint renders δεδοὺς δώσω. It 
has been supposed by some, though without sufficient 
evidence, that it may be explained as a Hebraism, in 
imitation of that Hebrew construction of the infinitive 


HEBREWS, CHAP. VIII. v. 10. 305 


with a finite tense, where the latter has been left un- 
derstood, so that the former stands alone to express a 
finite meaning. ‘This construction may be seen in its 
full form in Gen. 22: 17, where God says to Abraham, 
“Tn blessing I will bless thee,” &ec. 7738 73 72; and 
in Heb. 6: 14 it is imitated without ellipsis, im the 
Greek thus: εὐλογῶν εὐλογήσω σε, κιτιΔ. But it 
seems doubtful whether the phrase under discussion 
can be a shortened form of this construction, especially 
as the Hebrew of which it is a translation is different. 
Stuart and others consider dzdove as here used for the 
finite verb δώσω: and there seems, at the first glance, 
to be countenance for this supposition in such passages 
as John 5: 44, Πῶς δύνασθε ὑμεῖς πεστεῦσαε, δόξαν 
παρ᾿ ἀλλήλων λαμβάνοντες, καὶ τὴν δόξαν τὴν παρὰ 
τοῦ μόνου ϑεοῦ οὐ ζητεῖτε: and Eph. 1: 20, ἐγεέρας 
αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν, καὶ ἐχάϑεσεν ὃν δέξεχ αὑτοῦ, κ.τ.λ. 
where λαμβάνοντες and ἐγείρας seem to fill the place 
of finite verbs. But these are rather anacolutha. The 
idea that one part of a paradigm is explicitly used for 
another, is always unreasonable, and in the teeth of 
the very notion of regular forms in language. What 
do we mean by calling δεδοὺς a participle, and δώσω a 
jinite tense? We mean that a certain termination, in 
this case -ovs, is conventionally agreed upon for the 
sole purpose of indicating a certain phase of meaning, 
which is different from another phase conventionally 
indicated by -σω. How arbitrary is it to say that the 
termination -ovg is sometimes used to express a finite- 
tense action, when the only purpose of its invention 
20 


306 HEBREWS, OHAP. VIII. v. 10. 


and use was, to show that the sense expressed was dif- 
ferent from that of a finite tense? Kuinoél and 
Bloomfield supply «éue or ἔσομαε: an explanation 
which receives some countenance from Kiihner, $313. 
Rem. 1. But the most rational and natural view 15 
that suggested by Winer, Idioms of the New Test. 
$64. 2. b. (p. 408), that δεδοὺς presents only an in- 
stance of ἀνακολούϑον, prompted by a desire to give 
prominence to the second thought, which is expressed 
by the subsequent clause, zai... ἐπεγράινψω, κιτ.λ.: 
διδοὺς then is simply a participle, construed with the 
subject of διαϑήσομαι, and if the construction had 
been regular, we should have had ἐπεγραφὼν in the 
same construction: “This is the arrangement which I 
will institute with them, placing my laws in their 
mind, and writing them upon their hearts.” But the 
emphasis desired to be thrown on the idea of ‘ writing 
them on the heart, changed the second participle, in 
the process of the sentence, into a more definite form, 
the future. 

εἰς Heov... εἰς λαόν. This is a construction ex- 
actly similar to that of Hebr. 1: 5, and both passages 
are in close imitation of the Hebrew. In the present 
instance it is D>Nd ... 95, “1 will be to them in the 
relation of a God, and they shall be to me in the rela- 
tion of a people ;’ 1. e. my peculiar people. 

The exact meaning of this important verse is now 
apparent. ‘These are the characteristics of the new 
dispensation ; that it will secure to its objects that en- 
lightening of the mind in the spiritual knowledge of 


HEBREWS, CHAP. VIII. v. 11. 307 


God’s word, and that renewal of the heart, which con- 
stitute a true, spiritual regeneration; and it will insti- 
tute between God and his people the unchangeable 
covenant relation of gracious ruler and protector on 
his part, and affectionate, obedient subjects on theirs. 

V.11. πλήσεον. Some ancient and many more 
recent manuscripts read here πολέτην, instead of πλή- 
ocov. Several versions and Fathers, among the former 
of which is the Septuagint, give the same reading. 
The Hebrew is "477 ὩΣ ws. The general sense is not 
affected, as it is only a substitute of the word ‘fellow- 
citizen’ for ‘neighbour.’ 

Ore πάντες εἰδήσουσέ με, 4.7.4. Ore here is causal, 
and introduces the reason why one should not, under 
this new dispensation, teach another to know the Lord, 
viz, because all, of every grade and condition, would 
already do this. Τὸ “know the Lord” here, is to rec- 
ognize, own, and practically obey Him as God. The 
promise does not therefore mean that, in the maturity 
of the new dispensation, religious instruction by human 
means will wholly cease; for fulness of instruction is 
one of the glories of this dispensation, and revealed 
truth will always be the instrument of sanctification ; 
but that there will no longer be any occasion to per- 
form the work of reclaiming our fellow-men from 
idolatry, or from a life of practical irreligion. None 
of the subjects of that dispensation will then remain 
in these extreme conditions of ignorance and sin, in 
which so many Jews continued, under the Mosaic 
dispensation. 


908 HEBREWS, CHAP. VIII. Vv. 12. 


V.12. Ὅτε ἵλεως ἔσομαε, x.r.4. The conjunction 
here also is causal, though the connexion of thought is 
not so immediately obvious. “Orc introduces the great 
and fundamental blessing of the new dispensation, 
complete and free forgiveness, not only as completing 
the enumeration of those blessings, but as showing the 
cause or ground for the bestowal of those before men- 
tioned. It is as though it were said, ‘I will bestow, 
under this new dispensation, spiritual enlightening, re- 
generation, a covenant-union to myself by adoption, 
the universal knowledge and fear of God; and these 
because (orc) I will bestow one thing more, the merci- 
ful forgiveness of sins.’ It is because we are justified 
in Christ, that we are adopted, renewed, sanctified, 
and glorified. If the guilt of our sins remained upon 
us, it would forever bar the bestowal of these gifts by 
a just God. It is of course implied in this passage 
that the old dispensation did not, by its inherent 
power, bring these blessings to the people. It only 
had power to foreshadow them. 

ov μὴ μνησϑῶ. 'This construction is the same with 
ov μὴ διδώξωσεν in ν. 11, and we have therefore post- 
poned remark upon it till now. Many critics (as 
Kiihner, 8918. 7) resolve it into some such ellipsis as 
this: ov φόβος ἔστε μὴ μνησίλῶ, ‘It is not to be feared 
that I will remember, &c. Winer (Id. New Test. 
$60. 8, pp. 888, 389) seems to favour a similar reso- 
lution; remarking, that “the intensive ov μεὴ is used 
of that which in no way is, or can happen;” as though 
the full construction were something such as this: 


HEBREWS, CHAP. VIII. v. 18. 309 


ov κίνδυνος μὴ μνησϑῶ. It throws doubt over these 
explanations, that while the expression is very fre- 
quent, no instance of its supposed full form is cited. 
It is perhaps sufficient for us to remark that the con- 
struction is equivalent to the most emphatic and direct 
negative. A few instances occur in which the verb 
following μεὴ is in the future indicative, and one even 
in which it is in the present tense of that mood. But 
the most frequent tense employed is the aorist sub- 
junctive, as the force of the moods would lead us to 
expect. Grammarians have endeavoured to discrimi- 
nate between the meanings of those cases where the 
future indicative and those where the aorist subjunc- 
tive is used; but wholly without success. The usage, 
at least in the New Test. is not guided by a settled 
principle of syntax. The particle ἔτε gives to this 
precious promise peculiar value; it shows that the for- 
giveness is complete and final. Compare Micah 7: 19, 
last clause; Ps. 103: 12. 

V.18. πεπαλαέωχκε, ‘He hath made old, in the 
sense of ‘representing as old’ It may be illustrated 
by the Latin expression, antiquare legem. 'The perfect 
tense is employed, because the act, though past, is re- 
ferred to a present time, and in effect was still contin- 
uing at the time of writing. See Winer’s Id. New 
Test. 841. 4, pp. 218-216. God’s calling the second 
dispensation new, implied that the first was old. 

τὸ δὲ παλαιούμενον καὶ γηράσκον, κ.τ.2., ‘But; 
that which is antiquated and is growing old, is near its 
disappearance.’ The Apostle here employs an infer- 


910 HEBREWS, CHAP. VIII. v. 138. 


ence drawn from analogy. As old age, in all plants 
and animals, announces the approach of dissolution, so 
in this institution. The gracious promise of the pro- 
phet implied that the approach of the new dispensa- 
tion would antiquate the old. Hence there was 
ground to expect that the full establishment of the 
new would destroy the old. 


CHAPTER IX. 1—14 


ANALYSIS. 


Havrye shown the superior order of Christ’s priest- 
hood and priestly character, ch. VII. the superior sanc- 
tuary in which it was exercised, that is, the heavenly, 
and its superior functions, comporting with the supe- 
rior dispensation to which it belonged, ch. VIII. the 
author now enters upon a more particular considera- 
tion and comparison of the nature and value of the 
services of the two priesthoods; exhibiting the typical 
and temporal character of those performed by the 
Levitical priests, and the efficacious and _all-sufficient 
character of those rendered by Christ, chs. [X.—X. 18. 

He begins by reciting the leading arrangements of 
the ancient tabernacle, and the disposition of its fur- 
niture, ch. [X. vv. 1-5, and the principal daily and 
yearly services that were performed in it, vv. 6, 7. 
This perpetual exclusion of all but the high-priest from 
the holy of holies, and even of him except on a single 
day in the year, and his entrance on that day with 
special sacrifices for himself and the people, the author 
declares, imported that, while the former tabernacle 
stood, the way was not yet opened for free access to 
God. ‘That is, the Aaronic sanctuary had no power, 
by its services, to procure such access: it was a mere 
type until the time then present. Its offerings and 
sacrifices, still presented, could not perfect the con- 


919 CHAP. IX.—ANALYSIS. 


science of the server, and were only imposed, with 
other carnal ordinances, till the new dispensation 
should take effect, vv. 8-10. On the other hand (δὲ 
being opposed, in v. 11, to μὲν in v. 1), Christ, the 
High-Priest of the good things to come, had done a 
more excellent and efficacious work; (@) He had en- 
tered through the tabernacle that was better and more 
perfect, (@) not with the blood of goats and calves, 
but His own, (v) once for all into the heavenly sanctu- 
ary, (δ) having effected a true redemption, vv. 11, 12. 
This last crowning result he argues (γάρ), from the 
superior nature of the sacrifice: if the blood of bulls, 
goats, ὅσο. removed certain temporary, penal liabilities 
under the theocracy, how much more would the blood 
of Christ, who with an eternal spirit offered Himself 
without spot to God, free us from the pollution and 
condemnation of dead works, unto the service of the 
living God? vv. 18, 14. 


HEBREWS CHAP. Ix. v. l. 313 


COMMENTARY. 


IX. 1 Eive μὲν οὖν καὶ ὴ πρῶτη [σκηνὴ] διωκαιεώ- 
2 froeeee λατρείας, τό, τὲ ἅγιον κοσμεεκόν. Σχηνὴ 
γὰρ κατεσχευάσϑη ἡ πρώτη, ἕν ἡ TE λυχνία καὶ 
ἡ τράπεζα καὶ ἡ πρόϑεσις τῶν ἄρτων, ἥτες λέγεται 
ἅγια. Μετὰ δὲ τὸ δεύτερον καταπέτασμα σκηνὴ 
ἢ Asyou éyn ἅγεω ἁγέων, χρυσοῦν ἔχουσα ϑυμεα- 
THOLOY, καὶ τὴν κεβωτὸν τῆς διαϑηκης περεκεκα- 
λυμμένην. πάντοϑεν χρυσίῳ, ὃν ἢ στώμενος χουσὴ 
ἔχουσα τὸ μάννα, καὶ ἡ ῥάβδος ‘Aagay ἡ βλαστή- 
5 cacu, καὶ αἱ πλάχες τῆς διαϑήχκης ὑπεράνω δὲ 

αὐτῆς Χερουβὶμ τῆς δόξης, κατασκιάζοντα τὸ tha- 

στήρεον᾽" περὶ ὧν οὐκ ἔστε νῦν λέγεεν κατὰ μέρος. 


5 9 


V.1. Εἶχε μὲν οὖν. μὲν mntroduces the protasis, 
whose apodosis is introduced by δὲ of ν. 11. οὖν we 
will render “now.” De Wette renders it by nun 
freilich. As was remarked on its occurrence in 7: 11 
above, it carries here little more force than that of a 
particle of transition. 

καί. This conjunction here manifestly has the 
force of ‘also,’ and qualifies 7 πρώτη. It seems to have 
been employed by the author, because of the silent 
comparison which still existed in his mind between 
the first and second dispensations. 

7 πρώτη. This word should have supplied to it 
διαϑήκη. This is plain from the context, in several 
parts of the last chapter. Thus, v. 7, we have ἡ πρώτη 


314 HEBREWS, CHAP. Ix. ¥. 1. 


ἐκείνη, where the pronoun evidently points to δεαϑή- 
κῆης inv. 6. The Textus Receptus supplies σκηνή. 
This is wanting in many manuscripts, among which are 
some of the most ancient, in the Syriac, Vulgate, and 
other versions, and in the quotations of many Fathers. 
Some manuscripts supply ἐκείνη (probably in imitation 
of 8: 7), and some δεαϑήκη. The reading of the text 
we follow is most probably the accurate one. 
δωοκαεώματα λατρείας. δικαεώμεα signifies, first, a 
righteous act, and second, the precept or ordinance 
enjoining such an act, λατρεέας here, though in the 
genitive, is truly the objective word of the sentence, 
and we might express the meaning of the two words 
by ‘prescribed worship. With this may be compared 
1 Tim. 6:17, μηδὲ ἠλπεκένωε ἐπὶ πλούτου ἀδηλότητε" 
“nor trust in uncertain riches.” This usage of the 
genitive is explained by Winer (Idioms of New Test. 
$34. 2, p. 184) as a Hebraism, arising from the scarcity 
of adjectives, and the emphatic use of nouns in their 
stead, in the language imitated. Although the Greek 
would have furnished an appropriate adjective or par- 
ticiple, which might have been used to qualify Aa 
τρεέας, while that noun might have assumed the case 
proper to the object of the sentence, a Hebrew writer 
would prefer to use the genitive construction, both in 
imitation of the older language, and in order to give 
to the idea expressed by dcxacewuce more prominence 
than an adjective would have done. Or else, we may 
consider this generally as an instance of the wider de- 
fining relationship of the genitive, and give to the 


HEBREWS, CHAP. Ix. v. 1. 315 


words the sense ‘ worship-ordinances. ‘The first dis- 
pensation, too, had on the one hand its precepts, viz. 
of that particular class which pertain to forms of wor- 
ship.’ Similar instances of the use of the genitive may 
be seen in v. 10 below (Ocxacwpuara σαρκὸς, ‘carnal 
precepts’), and Rom. 2: 26 (δωχαεώματα τοῦ νόμου, 
‘legal precepts’). 

τὸ ἅγεον κοσμεκόν. There has been great dispute 
which of these two words is the object, and which the 
attributive. Those who are curious of such debates 
may see more abundant details in Bloomfield. The 
context certainly favours that construction which 
makes ἅγεον the noun and object, and χοσμεκὸν the 
attributive. The latter is an adjective; of rare occur- 
rence, indeed. ‘To show that it may be a substantive, 
cases have been produced where τὸ χοσμεκὸν is so em- 
ployed. It is urged, that, for ἅγεον to be the noun 
and object, the order should be τὸ κοσμικὸν ἅγεον, OY 
τὸ ἅγεον τὸ κοσμεκόν. But it might be also, ἅγεον 
τὸ zoopuxoy. Hither of these orders, according to 
Kiuhner, indicate an implied comparison in the attri- 
butive between its object and others of the same gene- 
ral class. It is most indisputable, that. where such an 
implied contrast is not intended, but the intention of 
the adjective or other qualifying phrase is simply to 
attribute to its object a particular quality, the usages 
of the language permit a different order, such as that 
in the text. We have instances of the same order in 
1 Cor. 10: 8, zat πάντες τὸ αὐτὸ βρῶμα πνευματεκὸν 


ἔφαγον, #.t.4. Gal. 1: 4, τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος «αἰῶνος movy- 


316 HEBREWS, CHAP. Ix. v. 1. 


gov. 1 John 5: 20, ἡ ζωὴ αἰώνεος (although it must 
be admitted that, in the last instance, some copies omit 
the article). Classic Greek exhibits similar instances, 
In Philostrat. Apoll. 7:16, we find ἐν τῷ νήσῳ ἀνύδρῳ. 
Kiihner cites from Xenophon’s Memorab. 4: 7. 7, Οἱ 
ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου καταλαμπόμενοι τὰ χρώματα μελαν- 
τέρα ἔχουσεν. Thucyd. 1. 49, says, Ἐνέπρησαν τὲ τὰς 
σκηνὰς ἐρήμους, καὶ τὰ χρήματα διήρπασαν. Other 
passages might easily be accumulated. Winer ob- 
serves, on 1 John 1: 20, that later writers began, in 
such cases, to omit the article. See his Id. New Test. 
819. (a), p. 118; Kiihner’s Gr. Gram. $245. 3. (a) (Ὁ), 
pp. 316-318. It is evident that an argument from 
the mere order of the words cannot be pressed. Greek 
writers did not conform themselves with-regularity to 
so trivial a rule of composition as this ; and criticisms 
founded upon it are too minute to be reliable. We 
therefore unhesitatingly regard τὸ ἅγεον as the noun 
and object; meaning in this place, not the holy of ho- 
lies particularly, but the whole Levitical tabernacle. 
xoouexov iS defined by Robinson’s Lex. as the oppo- 
site of ἐπουρανέου, ‘ terrestrial,’ as opposed to celestial. 
It here evidently describes the Jewish sanctuary as 
opposed to that heavenly one of v. 11, which is οὐ 
χειροποιήτου, ov ταύτης κτίσεως. The distinction 
may be illustrated by vv. 23, 24 below, where the 
parts of the one are said to be τὰ μὲν ὑποδείγματα 
τῶν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, but the other, αὐτὰ τὰ éxovea- 
vec, the one χεεροποίητα ἅγεω, the other αὐτὸν τὸν 


᾽ ld 
ovgeavor. 


HEBREWS, CHAP. Ix. v. 2. 317 


V. 2. Σκηνὴ yao κατεσκενάσϑε ἡ πρώτη. The 
conjunction γὰρ introduces the confirmation of the 
statement in the first verse. The idea of the writer 
seems to be, ‘For a tabernacle was constructed, (1 
mean) the first ; in which was the lamp, &c. This is 
the outer half of the sacred tent; called here first, not 
as distinguished from the heavenly into which Christ 
afterwards entered, but from the hinder half. It was 
first (foremost) in position. ‘The author here gives 
only a cursory glance at the tabernacle and its furni- 
ture, for this was all his purpose required; and we 
need not, therefore, wonder that he omits some things, 
as the altar of incense. 

καὶ ἡ πρόϑεσις τῶν ἄρτων. Some explain this ex- 
pression in the manner indicated in our ‘remarks on 
διχαεώματα λατρεία. I vy. 1, as the genitive of the 
object. If thus understood, it would be equivalent to 
οἱ ἄρτοι τῆς προϑέσεως, Which is the form of the ex- 
pression for ‘shew-bread’ in Matt. 12:4. And a par- 
allel expression might be found in Exod. 40: 23, where 
nm? 772 (‘the ordering of the bread’) exhibits the lead- 
ing word in regimen to that which seems properly its 
qualificative. But there is, nevertheless, good ground 
to doubt whether such a view fully expresses the 
meaning of the author. It is safer and more consistent 
with sound principles of criticism, to seek a meaning 
more strictly accordant with the particular arrange- 
ment of the words here, and to believe that the author 
meant something by that arrangement. We will 
rather hold, then, that if the Apostle had meant only 


318 HEBREWS, OHAP. IX. V. 38. 


oi ἄρτος προϑέντες, he would have said so; and that 
as he has used the form ἡ πρόϑεσις τῶν ὥρτων, he in- 
tended to make prominent the πρόϑεσες, as the subject 
of thought. See Winer’s Id. New Test. 884. 2, p. 184. 

ἥτες λέγεταε ayia. This outer, or front (πρώτη) 
part, is what was called the holy place. That is, when 
accuracy of language was intended, the phrase holy was 
restricted to the outer, and holy of holies to the inner 
tent. But in a looser sense, the whole tent was called 
holy, or the sanctuary, and sometimes no higher phrase 
was employed to express the holiest of all. 

V.3. Mere δὲ τὸ δεύτερον καταπέτασμα, ‘ Behind 
the second vail (or after passing the second vail) was 
the tent called holy of holies’ 'The first vail was that 
which closed the front of the outer tabernacle, a de- 
scription of which is given in Exod. 26:36. A de- 
scription of the whole tabernacle may be seen at large 
in that place. 

aye ἁγίων. ‘The plural form of this expression is 
worthy, of note. If we supposed σχηγνὴ were properly 
to be supplied to ἅγεα, making the latter feminine and 
singular, the form would be easily intelligible. And 
this would seem to receive some countenance from the 
occurrence of the feminine immediately before, ἥτες 
λέγεταε ἅγεα. But it can scarcely be doubted that the 
phrase is imitated from the Septuagint, where it is 
always neuter. In Exod. 26:33 the outer sanctuary 
is called in the Hebrew t73?, and in the Septuagint 
τοῦ ayiov, While the inner (ΘΠ VIP) is called τοῦ 
ἁγίου τῶν ayiav. In 1 Kings (Sept. ὃ Kings) 8: 6, 


HEBREWS, OHAP. IX. v. 4. 319 


the latter is rendered τὰ ὥγεα τῶν ἁγέων, the words 
in Hebrew being the same as above; and in Hebr. 9: 
8, 25, 18: 11, the inner sanctuary 1s called τὰ ayia. 
We must therefore explain the neuter plural which 
occurs in the most of these cases (τὰ ἄγε), as an in- 
stance of the collective sense which that form often 
expresses. The reader will remember that it is so 
prominent that the neuter plural always takes a verb 
singular. The attaching of the genitive ἁγέων to it, 
gives a superlative force, according to a usage preva- 
lent in both the Hebrew and older Greek. See Wi- 
ner’s Id. New Test. §37. 2, p. 195. 

V.4. χρυσοῦν ἔχουσα ϑυμεατήρεον. Some com- 
mentators, among whom is De Wette, will have this 
to be the altar of incense. They argue, in proof of 
this, that Josephus, in his Jewish Antiq. L. IIL. ch. 6, 
88, as well as Philo, calls the altar of incense Pupeec- 
τήρεον: that the altar is omitted in the enumeration 
of the furniture of the outer tabernacle which is given 
above; and that if we render the word ‘censer,’ we 
then meet the difficulty that Moses says nothing of 
such a censer belonging to the holy of holies. It is 
asked, moreover, ‘If it was deposited there, how was 
it gotten for use on the day of atonement?’ To ac- 
count for the fact that the Apostle here says that the 
altar of incense was in the most holy place, while Exod. 
30: 6, 7 clearly put it without, they either assume his 
ignorance, or suppose that the altar was carried into 
the most holy place on the day of atonement. 

But while Josephus calls the incense-altar Pupce- 


920 HEBREWS, OHAP. IX. V. 4. 


τήρεον, he expressly places it, as Exod. 80: 6, 40:5, 
26, between the candlestick and the table of shew- 
bread, in the outer tabernacle. And although Moses 
makes no mention of a special censer for the inner 
sanctuary, we know that there were several nnna, by 
a reference to Exod. 27:3 and 88:3. And it is in 
itself probable that there was one which belonged to 
the service of the inner sanctuary, and that it was 
golden. This is confirmed by the fact that Solomon 
(1 Kings 7: 50) caused golden censers to be made for 
the sanctuary, and that the angel who offers incense 
before the altar, in Rev. 8:3, used one of the same 
material. The symbolical vision doubtless took its 
shape from the usages of the Jewish sanctuary. If 
kept in the holy of holies, which it is not necessary to 
suppose, it may have been taken out by the high- 
priest, who entered several times on the day of atone- 
ment, as will appear by a reference to the observations 
on v.27 below. Or, the fire may have been carried 
to the most holy place in another vessel. De Wette 
says, ‘It is not likely that the altar would be passed 
by, and the censer mentioned. But that such an omis- 
sion is not incredible, is shown by the fact that it is 
made in Exod. 26, as he himself notices, in the whole 
of which chapter there is no description of the altar, 
though the enumeration of the objects in the taberna- 
cle is otherwise minute. It is not till the 30th chapter 
that the altar is described. It is incredible that the 
author of Hebrews should have misplaced the altar of 
incense from ignorance—and this aside from his inspi- 


HEBREWS, CHAP. IX. v. 4. 921 


ration; for no intelligent Jew could fail to know these 
details concerning a sanctuary and a worship so prized 
by him. It has no little weight, also, that the Septua- 
gint use the word ϑυσεαστήρεον for the altar of in- 
cense, not ϑυμεατήρεον, and employ the latter for the 
Hebrew 0p, ‘censer,’ in two passages, 2 Chron. 26: 
19, Ezek. 8:11. ΑΒ is well observed by Stuart, in 
his Excursus XVI. the silence of the Pentateuch con- 
cerning this golden censer is not a contradiction of the 
Apostle. Until it is proved that the priests may not 
have had one among the several censers, which was 
kept in the holy of holies, and used only for its ser- 
vices on the day of atonement, surely Paul’s learning, 
minute acquaintance with religious affairs, and inspira- 
tion, are sufficient to secure credit to his assertion on 
this point. 

ἐν ἡ στάμνος, x.t.A. The pot of manna and the 
rod of Aarori were laid up zm the chest, and not by, or 
beside it. In 1 Kings 8: 9, and 2 Chron. 5: 10, it is 
stated very explicitly that there was nothing in the 
ark at Solomon’s day, except the two tables of stone. 
But the Apostle is now describing the tabernacle as it 
was arranged by Moses, in its perfect order and con- 
formity to the divine pattern, and not in any subse- 
quent state. In Ex. 16: 34, it is stated that the pot 
of manna was laid up before the Lord, and in Numb. 
17: 10, that the rod was laid up ‘before the testi- 
mony,’ 1. 6. the tables of the law. These were in the 
ark; and it is far most reasonable to suppose that the 
others were also within it, especially when we re- 

21 


322 HEBREWS, OHAP. IX. Vv. 5. 


member the frequent removals of the tabernacle and 
its contents. The oreuvog is not said to be golden, 
by Moses, but it is so rendered by the Septuagint, 
Exod. 16: 33; and it is every way probable in itself, 
inasmuch as all else pertaining to the ark was of that 
metal. 

V. 5. Χερουβὶμ δόξης. Stuart renders these 
words the splendid cherubim; and supposes that the 
reference is to the brilliance of the gold, of which 
they were made. It is far more natural to regard 
them as so called because of the divine glory which 
shone between them. It was here that the divine 
presence made its visible manifestation to Moses, as we 
learn from a comparison of Exod. 25: 22 and Numb. 
7: 89, “There will I meet with thee, and I will com- 
mune with thee from above the mercy-seat, from be- 
tween the two cherubims,” &c. “Moses heard the 
voice of one speaking unto him from off the mercy- 
seat that was upon the ark of testimony, from between 
the two cherubims.” It is in allusion to this that Ps. 
80: 1 says, “ Thou that dwellest between the cherubim, 
shine forth.” 

τὸ ἑλαστήρεον. This is the word adopted by the 
Septuagint for the rendering of M752, which is the 
name given to the covering or lid of the ark, in Exod. 
25: 17-22, and often elsewhere. ‘The name is derived 
originally from "22, ‘to cover, whence 52, to cover 
sin, or make atonement, expiation. The name of 
‘mercy-seat,’ or place of expiation, was given to the 
lid of the ark, because here the blood of atonement 


HEBREWS; OMAP. Px! Vo 5% 323 


was annually sprinkled by the high-priest on the great 
day. See Levit. 16:14, 15. The word ἑλαστήρεον 
also occurs in Rom. 3: 25, in the sense of ‘ propitiatory 
sacrifice,’ as is manifest from the demands of the con- 
text. But that it is here used in the Septuagint sense 
of mercy-seat, is obvious. 

κατὰ μέρος. ‘The meaning of these words may be 
well represented by ‘particularly. Upon comparing 
such phrases as xa? ἕνα, xara δύω, κατ᾽ ἐνεχυτόν, 
xak ἡμέραν, &c. ‘one by one, ‘two by two,’ &. the 
distributive force of this preposition is manifest. κατὰ 
μέρος accordingly is, ‘part by part. See Winer’s Id. 
New Test. $53. (d), p. 319. The Apostle here de- 
clines entering upon a minute exhibition of the uses 
and symbolical import of the furniture and arrange- 
ments of the tabernacle. The general views which he 
proceeds to give answer his purposes. 


, a , \ 
6 Τούτων δὲ οὕτω xarecxsvacmévay, εἰς μὲν THY 
͵ \ \ > = A 
πρώτην σκηνὴν διαπαντὸς εἰςέασεν οἱ ἑερεῖς τὰς 
, ? ~ é ΕἾ Ἂ Ἃ ͵ cr 
1 λατρείας énerehovyres* εἰς δὲ τὴν δευτέραν ἅπαξ 
~ Ὁ - Γ c ? c 
τοῦ EVLAUTOU μονος ὁ ἀρχιερεύς, οὐ χωρὶς αἵματος, 
ra , c = Ἴ = ~ mY 
O προςφέρεε ὑπὲρ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ τῶν τοῦ λαοῦ ἀγνοη- 
la ~ ~ ~ td ~ 
8 μάτων" τοῦτο δηλοῦντος τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ 
Gro / ~ \ ~ οι ἢ cQ/ 
ἁγίου, μήπω πεφανερῶσϑαε τὴν τῶν ἁγέων ὁδόν, 
» - Lf ~ Ἴ r r co 
9 ἐτε τῆς πρωτῆς σκηνῆς ἐχούσης στάσεν " ἥτες παρα- 
\ 3 ‘\ > I > «a ~ ta 
βολὴ εἰς τὸν καιρὸν τὸν ἐνεστηκότω, καϑ' ὃν δῶρα 
x \ 
τὸ καὶ ϑυσίαε προςφέρονταε μὴ Ouvamsvuc κατὰ 


824. HEBREWS, CHAP. Ix. Vv. 6, 7. 


10 cuveidnow τελεεῶσαι τὸν λατρεύοντα " μόνον ἐπὶ 
βρώμασε καὶ πόμασε, καὶ διαφόροις βαπτιεσμοῖς 
[καὶ] δικαεώμασε σαρκὸς μέχρε καιροῦ διορϑώ- 
σεως ἐπεκείμενα. 


V. 6. διαπαντός, ‘At all times.” This may be 
continuously, ‘always,’ in the sense of that which is 
without interval, or at stated and frequently-recurring 
times. The latter is the meaning here. Examples of 
this meaning may also be seen in Luke 24: 53, “ And 
were continually (δεαπαντὸς) in the temple, praising 
and blessing God;” Acts 10: 2, where it is said Cor- 
nelius “prayed to God always” (δεαπαντός), and 
Hebr. 13: 15, “ Let us offer the sacrifice of praise unto 
God continually” (δεαπαντός). 

V.%. anak τοῦ émavrov. These ὥριο we should 
render not ‘once during the year, but, ‘on one occa- 
sion during the year.’ The opposition of the term is 
to διαπαντός. “Speak to Aaron thy brother that he 
come not at all times into the holy place within the 
vail.” Levit. 16:2. From Levit. 16: 12-15, it ap- 
pears that on the great day of atonement, the high- 
priest made several entries; first, to burn incense; 
second, to sprinkle the blood of the bullock, unless 
this was done at the first entry; third, to carry in the 
blood of the goat, just killed by him. Jewish testi- 
mony on the subject is contradictory. A tradition 
has been stated, on the authority of Philo, that if the 
high-priest went in oftener than twice, he was put to 
death; but doubt exists whether this author is cor- 


HEBREWS, CHAP. Ix. V. 8. 325 


rectly represented as asserting this. A tradition in the 
Talmud says that the high-priest went in four times. 

ov χωρὶς αἵματος. The passage just cited from 
the 16th chapter of Leviticus, and especially v. 12, 
shows that this is not to be pressed too literally. The 
high-priest must carry sacrificial blood, not each time 
he went in, but on each annual occasion. 

ἀγνοημάτων. This word occurs only here in the 
New Test. The participle ὠγνοδῦσε is used, in a sense 
which serves to illustrate this, in Hebr. 5:2. It is 
used as the rendering for 73%, “oversight,” in Gen. 
43:12, by the Septuagint. But here it must be un- 
derstood to embrace all sins, and not only those of in- 
advertence and ignorance; for, in Levit. 16: 16-22, we 
are most distinctly informed that the sacrifices of the 
great day of atonement had reference to all the sins of 
the whole nation, including the priests. He who dis- 
obeys, though it is a law well known, fails to retain in 
his mind the cognizance of it: he ‘ignores’ it. 

Υ. 8. τοῦτο, scilicet μήπω πεφανερῶσϑαε τὴν τῶν 
ἁγέων ὅδόν. This then is the object οἵ δηλοῦντος. 
The Holy Spirit indicated this fact (‘that the way 
into the holy places was not yet manifested while the 
former tabernacle was standing’), by instructing Mo- 
ses to perpetuate this symbolical ritual. It is the 
teaching of the Holy Ghost, because He taught Moses 
the ritual. And all this part of the Levitical ceremo- 
nial showed the impotency of its offerings and services 
to secure free access to God. It pointed to the better 
sacrifice and services which would secure this result, 


326 HEBREWS, OHAP. IX. V. 9. 


but it showed that the Aaronic dispensation did not 
furnish the effectual offering. It pointed to Christ, 
who had not yet died. 

τῶν ἁγίων. This word here undoubtedly means 
the heavenly sanctuary where God truly dwells, adum- 
brated by the earthly holy of holies, in which his visi- 
ble presence was manifested. To this there was no 
access but by the high-priest—that once a year, and 
then with special sacrifices. 

ἔτε τῆς πρώτης σκηνῆς, κιτιΔ. The meaning here 
is, ‘while yet the first tabernacle stood by the divine 
appointment.’ For surely the access to the true sane- 
tuary through Christ was not to be closed, as long as 
the perverse bigotry of the Jews chose to perpetuate 
the tabernacle worship, contrary to God’s will. There 
is a clear implication in these words, that when once 
the way into the true holy place, heaven, had been 
opened by the divine High-Priest, the first sanctuary 
would no longer stand: ‘the way into the holy place 
was not manifested while yet the first tabernacle stood.’ 
Therefore, when the true sanctuary is opened up by 
Christ, we expect the first to fall. And its fall implies 
the cessation of the whole ceremonial economy con- 
nected with it. 

V.9. ἥτις παραβολή. This noun means literally, 
‘a placing side by side, and hence generally, in the 
gospels, ‘a parable” ‘The meaning here is, ‘a symbol,’ 
‘a type” There is a parallelism between the type 
and antitype, as there is between the parable and the 
truth embodied in it. 


HEBREWS, CHAP. IX. v. 9. 327 


εἰς τὸν καιρὸν τὸν ἐνεστηκότα. The English ver- 
sion, “for the time then present,” does not represent 
the proper sense of these words. The particle ‘then’ 
is improperly introduced. Itis best to give εἰς the 
most primary sense which it usually has with the ac- 
cusative, that of terminus ad quem. Ἐνεστηκώς, or 
éveoras, occurs in Rom. 8: 38, Gal. 1:4, 1 Cor. ὃ: 
22, and elsewhere; and always with the evident 
sense of ‘instant, ‘present’ (‘that which hath come 
upon us’). The phrase means, ‘until the time pres- 
ent,’ i.e. the incoming of the new dispensation. Until 
that juncture, the tabernacle subserved its symbolical 
use. 

καϑ' ὃν δῶρώ τε καὶ ϑυσίαε moocpégovra. Here, 
also, the English version unwarrantably renders the 
verb as a past tense, misapprehending the Apostle’s 
idea. χαϑ' ov should be rendered, ‘during which’ 
(time, i. 6. this season of the new dispensation). Let 
the reader consult Robinson’s Lex. New Test. sub voce, 
II. 2. The tabernacle ‘was a symbol until the time 
that has now come (New Testament times), during 
which both gifts and sacrifices are (still) offered, which 
are not able (or, though they are not able) to make 
the worshipper perfect with regard to his conscience.’ 
That the temple and Levitical service still continued at 
the time this Epistle was written, is clear from the 
allusions in 8:13, “Now that which decayeth and 
waxeth old is ready to vanish away” (has not yet van- 
ished); 10: 25, “ Exhorting one another, and so much 
the more as ye see the day approaching ;” and 18: 10, 


828 HEBREWS, OHAP. IX. v. 10. 


“We have an altar whereof they have no right to eat, 
which serve the tabernacle.” 

μὴ δυνώμεναι. The participle is here made femi- 
nine, as agreeing with ϑυσίαε, the nearer and more 
important noun, and the one uppermost in the writer’s 
mind. Winer’s Id. New Test. $35. 2, p. 188, or 
Kiihner’s Greek Gram. $242. 1, may be consulted for 
confirmation. 

κατὰ συνείδησεν τελεεῶσαε, “Το perfect the offerer 
in his conscience.’ These sacrifices were not able to 
bring those who offered them to a complete peace of 
conscience, nor fully meet its demands for pardon and 
sanctification. They could secure ultimate exemption 
from neither guilt nor pollution. We have a similar 
assertion in nearly the same form in 10: 1, οὐδέποτε 
Ovvara τοὺς MOOSEQZOMEVOUS τελεεώσει. 

V.10. This verse contains great difficulties of con- 
struction, and, in addition, a much contested various 
reading. We will proceed to unfold that construction 
which appears on the whole most reasonable, without 
dwelling on all the grounds which support it; trust- 
ing that its consistency with itself and the context 
will be the best proof of its truth. We regard the 
adverb μόνον as qualifying the concluding phrase of 
the sentence, μέχρε καιροῦ δεορϑώσεως ETLHELMEVE. 
éat should be rendered, not “in,” as the Engl. version, 
but “in addition to,” “besides.” This additive mean- 
ing proceeds very naturally from its primary meaning 
of “upon,” for what is added is naturally conceived of 
as superposed, as in the material process of raising a 


HEBREWS, CHAP. 1x. v. 10. 329 


heap or pile of any solid substance; and it is a very 
frequent meaning. See Winer’s Id. New Test. $52. ¢, 
Ῥ. 314. Instances may be seen in Matt. 25: 20, 99, 
Luke 3: 20, 16: 26, “I have gained besides them (én 
αὐτοῖς) five talents more.” “Behold, I have gained 
two other talents besides them” (ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῖς). “ Herod 
added yet this above all (exit πᾶσε), that he shut up 
John in prison.” “And desides all this (καὶ ἐπὶ nace 
rouroic), between us and you there is a great gulf 
fixed,” ce. 

βρώμασε καὶ πόμασε, ‘ Katings and drinkings,’ i. 6. 
‘meats and drinks.” ‘These words refer to the ceremo- 
nial distinctions between meats clean and unclean, and 
the regulations pointing out what might be eaten and 
drunk by the priests and their families only, and what 
by the worshippers. The διαφόροις Sanrio ois refer 
to the various ablutions required of priests, and per- 
sons who had become ceremonially unclean. The same 
word is used here and in Hebr. 6: 2, where the doc- 
trine of baptisms is mentioned as one of the “principles 
of the doctrine of Christ.”. The Bible reader needs 
scarcely to be reminded that these δεαφόροι Sanrio puoi 
of the Levitical law were chiefly by affusion. 

δικαιώμασε. 'The conjunction standing before this 
noun in the Textus Receptus is wanting in several an- 
cient and some more recent manuscripts, the Syriac, 
Coptic, Sahidic, and other versions; and is expunged 
in the editions of Griesbach, Scholz, Vater, and Hahn. 
The weight of authority is in favour of its rejection: 
διωκαεώμασε is then left in apposition with  βρώμασι, 


330 HEBREWS, OHAP. IX. v. 10. 


πώμασε, καὶ διαφόροις βαπτεσμοῖς. If the conjune- 
tion is retained, we must give it the explicative sense 
‘even;’ ‘meats, drinks, divers baptisms, even carnal 
ordinances,’ &e. Some manuscripts of high authority 
write dvxccwuara (nominative), and this reading is 
adopted by Scholz and Hahn. This noun would then 
be in apposition with δῶρά re καὶ ϑυσίαε of the prece- 
ding verse, yet embracing the whole of the ceremonials 
named, in its general sense. But great difficulty is 
then thrown in the way of any fair construction of the 
whole sentence; for the position of the words would 
then render it extremely harsh to regard μόγον as the 
qualificative of exxsiusva μέχρε καιροῦ διορϑώσεως 
below: whereas, if we read δωχαεώμασε, in apposition 
with βρώμασε, ἄτα. the whole forms one- qualificative 
clause to ἐπεκεέμενα, το. and as such, may be with 
entire propriety interposed between μόνον and the 
phrase qualified by it. The reading of the English 
version, “gifts and sacrifices... which stood only in 
meats and drinks,” &e. is inadmissible, because it does 
not appear how sacrifices consisted in meats clean and 
unclean. In the ambiguity of the manuscript author- 
ity, we will therefore retain the dative, which is the 
reading of the Textus Receptus and Vater. 

σαρκός. This word has here its primary or mate- 
rial meaning, and not its derived sense of ‘ carnality.’ 
It defines the nature of these ordinances. They pre- 
scribed outward observances, which were concerned 
not with the soul and its guilt and depravity (except 
as symbols), but with material substances and the 


τῶ, δ 


HEBREWS, CHAP. Ix. v. 10. 331 


bodies of the worshippers, and which removed only 
temporary and carnal liabilities. Thus, in 7: 16, they 
are said to be “after the law of a carnal command- 
ment ;” and in 9: 13, “the blood of bulls and of goats 
... Sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh.” These 
ordinances of the flesh also are temporary because of 
their inefficiency, as has been indicated in the obser- 
vations on 7:19, and as it is afterwards stated in 10: 
4-9, 

μέχρε καιροῦ δεορίϑώσεως, ‘Until the time of re- 
formation,’ 1. e. the removing of the old and the set- 
ting up of the new dispensation. Up.to that juncture, 
these gifts and sacrifices were truly incumbent (exczxee- 
μενα) duties of God’s people; but only (μόνον) up 
to that time. The Apostle teaches, therefore, that, 
though still offered, these carnal ordinances were des- 
tined to cease upon the establishment of the better 
thing which they shadowed forth. 

ἐπεκείμενα. We have already indicated that we 
regard this participle as belonging to δῶρα re καὶ 
ϑυσίαε above. Its gender (neuter) has been supposed 
by some critics to present a reason for retaining the 
reading δωχαεώματα in the nominative, because ϑυσέαε, 
the nearer of the two nouns to which we attach it, is 
feminine. The general principle was pointed to, that 
where an adjective or participle is attached to two con- 
nected nouns, it follows the feminine rather than the 
neuter. But consulting Kiihner’s Greek Gram. $242. 
1, we see that this rule only holds strictly of proper 
nouns; and that with common nouns, the qualifying 


332 HEBREWS, CHAP. IX. v. 10. 


adjective is often neuter, without respect to the gender 
of its subjects. See, for example, Herod. 8, 57, ἣν ἡ 
ἀγορὰ καὶ τὸ πρυτανήϊον Hagia MPa ἠσκήμενα. 
Xenoph. Mem. 8. 1. 7, λέϑοε τὲ καὶ πλένϑοε καὶ ξυλὰ 
καὶ κέραμος ἀτακτὼς ἐῤῥεμένα οὐδὲν χρήσεμα ἐστέν. 
The same usage prevails in other good writers. 

The meaning which we conceive the Apostle to ex- 
press is therefore this: ‘Gifts and sacrifices are (still) 
offered, (though) not able to give complete peace and 
purity of conscience to the worshipper, which are only 
incumbent, in addition to distinctions of clean and un- 
clean meats, and drinks, and divers ablutions, ordi- 
nances (merely) carnal, until the time of reformation 
(of the typical dispensation.’) 


; \ ' > \ ~ 
11 Χριστὸς δὲ παραγενόμενος, ἀρχεερεὺς τῶν jush- 
΄ - \ ~ ‘ 4 
λόντων ἀγαϑῶν, dia τῆς μείζονος καὶ τελεεοτέρας 
~ > Γ ci Dia ae > , 
σκηνῆς, οὐ χειροποιήτου, (τοῦτ᾽ ἔστεν, οὐ-ταύτης 
~ , IQy ? ec “4 Υ a 
12 τῆς κτίσεως,) οὐδὲ δὲ αἵματος τράγων καὶ μὸ- 
- > 2 ' ~ > | , 
σχων, δεὰ δὲ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος, εἰρῆλϑεν ἐφαπαὲ 
> ' > ’ c \ 
13 εἰς τὰ ayia, atoviay λύτρωσεν svgousvos. Ei γὰρ 
αὶ , x 4 ‘ , 
τὸ αἷμα ταύρων καὶ τράγων, καὶ σποδὸς δαμά- 
I he Ἂ ’ ς l we \ 
hews ῥαντέζουσω τοὺς κεκοινωμένους, ἁγεώζεε πρὸς 
‘ ~ \ és , ~ / 
14 τὴν τὴς σαρκὸς xadagornra’ ποσῳ μᾶλλον τὸ 
z - ἂν \ \ ’ 
αἷμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὃς διὰ πνεύματος αἰωνίου 
7 ” ~ ~ ~ 
ἑαυτὸν προζηνεγκὲν ἄμωμον τῷ ted, καϑαρεεὶ 
~ \ ~ ‘ 
τὴν συνείδησεν ὑμῶν ἀπὸ νεκρῶν ἔργων, εἰς TO 


λατρεύειν ϑεῷ ζῶντε 
ἐ 


HEBREWS, CHAP. Ix. v. 11. 999 


V. 11. Χριστὸς δές The adversative particle ἡ 
here introduces the apodosis to ν. 1. There is here an 
antithesis between the tabernacle and services of the 
ancient dispensation, introduced by the words ἡ πρώτη 
... μὲν of v. 1, and the sanctuary and offering of the 
new, which is here introduced by Χρεστὸς δὲ παραγε- 
VOMEVOS. 

ἀρχεερεὺς τῶν μελλόντων ayador. The same 
phrase occurs in 10:1, σχκεῶν yao ἔχων ὃ νόμος τῶν 
μελλόντων ἀγαϑῶν. The participle, according to the 
sense illustrated in the remarks on 2: 5 above, refers 
to the second dispensation, which had so long been 
spoken of as the future one, that a Jew would natu- 
rally call it ‘the one to come, even after its introduc- 
tion had begun. The good things (ἀγαϑϑῶν) are the 
benefits of redemption, secured and ministered by 
Christ (the ἀρχεερεύς), but only typified, not obtained 
(σκεᾶν τῶν μελλόντων), by the Levitical institutions. 
Christ is the priest of the new dispensation with its 
benefits. From 11: 18, 89, 40, below, we learn that 
these benefits, though future as yet, and only pre- 
figured, were apprehended by the faith of Old Testa- 
ment believers. 

διὰ τῆς μείζονος καὶ τελειοτέρας σκηνῆς. Oia 15 
here employed in its original sense of ‘through. The 
arrangements of the typical sanctuary lead the writer 
to conceive of Christ as making a sacrifice of himself 
in the court, as it were, on earth, and then passing 
through the heavens as the vail separating the outer 
from the inner sanctuary of this better tabernacle, to 


334 HEBREWS, OHAP. Ix. v. ll. 


sprinkle his own blood on the mercy-seat in heaven. 
The whole clause is therefore to be regarded as quali- 
ficative of εἰῆλϑεν εἰς τὰ ἅγεα in the succeeding verse. 
This interpretation is sustained by 4: 14 above, where 
Christ is called a great High-Priest who hath passed 
through (dceAnAvdora) the heavens. In 6: 19, 20, it 
is said that Christ our forerunner has entered for us 
within the vail, &c.; the vail (the lower heavens) 
must be penetrated, to reach a position within it; 
7: 26, He is “made higher than the heavens;” and in 
vy. 24-26 below, He is said to have gone into heaven 
itself, or very heaven, to appear before God on our 
behalf. 

ov χειροποιήτου. ‘These words express briefly the 
same idea contained in 8:2, “The true tabernacle 
which the Lord pitched and not man.” The parallel- 
ism of the sentiment is obvious. It does not seem 
necessary, therefore, to extend the meaning of ov χέερο- 
ποιήτου to the sense of ‘immaterial and uncreated,’ 
The Apostle does not say, in the next clause (ov rav- 
της τῆς κτίσεως), that it was not created at all; but 
that it was not a part of this creation. It was not un- 
created; it is only asserted that it was not, like Moses’ 
tabernacle, the work of human hands. The place 
where the triune God unfolded his glories, and held 
communion with holy angels before the creation and 
blight of owr world, the place where the human part 
of Christ glorified, and angels and redeemed souls, 
now abide, is undoubtedly intended. About its po- 
sition, direction, or nature, we know nothing; ex- 


BEBE, OMAR. Dox. ver ΤΣ 335 


cept that Christ, to reach it, penetrated our visible 
heavens. 

V.12. διὰ αἵματος ... δεὰ δὲ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος. 
διὰ here may be best explained as expressing the 
equipments, or attendant circumstances and relations, 
under which the act is done; a meaning assigned to 
this preposition by Winer, Id. New Test. $51. (4), p. 
806. Its derivation from the primary local meaning 
of ‘through, is obvious: first, ‘through,’ second, 
‘means through which a result is effected,’ because the 
efficiency is conceived as passing from the agent to its 
object through the instrumental means; and _ third, 
‘surrounding circumstances attending the action,’ for 
here also the act is conceived of in a looser sense as 
put forth through (i. e. surrounded by) those circum- 
stances. Clear examples of δεὼ in this sense may be 
found in Rom. 2: 27, where the author calls the Jew 
τὸν διὰ γράμματος καὶ περετομῆς παραβάτην νόμου, 
‘one whose transgressions 816» attended with ἃ know- 
ledge of the written word of God, and the practice of 
circumcision ;’ in Rom. 14: 20, where eating meats 
offered to idols is said to be xaxdv τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ τῷ 
Ova προςκόμεματος ἐσϑέοντε, ‘sinful to that man whose 
eating is attended with offence to his brethren;’ and 
in 1 John 5: 6, Οὑτός ἐστεν ὁ ἐλϑὼν δὲ ὕδατος καὶ 
avuatos, “'This is he who came with water and blood.” 
This sense is certainly more consistent with the scope 
than that of ‘the instrument, which is given to dca by 
our English version, “neither by the blood of bulls 
and goats, but by his own blood.” Christ can hardly 


336 HEBREWS, CHAP. Ix. v. 138. 


be said to have procured admission for himself to 
heaven by his blood, for he always had access to it in 
his own right; and the position of the words compels 
us to regard this clause as qualifying εἰρῆλϑεν. His 
blood was, rather, the instrument for “obtaining eter- 
nal redemption for us.” 

λύτρωσεν. This word occurs in the New Test. only 
here, and in Luke 1: 68, 2:38. In the last two 
places it is applied by Zacharias and Anna to Christ’s 
work on earth. Its meaning is ‘redemption’ from 
some obligation, such as that to a creditor, master, 
captor, or to law, by the payment of a ransom (Av- 
zoov).  Bretschneider renders it, /edemptio soluto 
pretio. The gospel redemption is from the bondage’ 
of moral corruption, and the obligation to punishment 
for sin. The price (λύτρον) paid by Christ is his 
blood. 

εὑρόμενος. This is a later Alexandrine form of 
the 1 aorist middle, occurring not seldom in Josephus, 
the Septuagint, and other writers of that school. Its 
full form is εὑρησώμενος. Here, as often in the New 
Test. it means simply ‘to obtain, without the idea of 
accidental and unexpected acquirement. Thus, Hebr. 
4: 16, “ Let us come boldly to the throne of grace... 
that we may find grace” (vague εὕρωμεν), &e. ; Hebr. 
12: 17, Esau “found no place for repentance” (τόπον 
οὐχ εὗρε). We employ our verb ‘find’ in the same 
sense when we say, ‘the labourer has found the re- 
ward of his labours, &c. - 

V. 18. σποδὸς δαμάλεως. Much difficulty has 


HEBREWS, CHAP. IX. v. 18. 337 


been experienced by commentators on account of the 
supposed masculine gender of σποδός. Bretschneider, 
Wahl, Robinson, Grove, Jones, and Stuart in his Com- 
mentary, make it masculine. I was formerly inclined 
to account for the feminine gender of the participle 
(davrifovca), by supposing that the subject was 
conceived of as a sort of compound feminine, ‘ heifer- 
ashes,’ the gender of the animal prevailing over that 
of σποδός. But the true explanation is most probably 
to be found in the fact that σποδὸς is both masculine 
and feminine. Passow, Liddell and Scott, and Don- 
negan, make it feminine. We find it of this gender in 
the Septuagint translation of Numb. 19: 9, τὴν σποδὸν 
τῆς δαμάλεως, in Homer’s Od. 9. 375, ὑπὸ σποδοῦ πολ- 
λῆς, and in Herod. IV. 172, τῆς χάμαϑεν σποδοῦ. 
The ceremonial here alluded to is described in Numb. 
19: 2-9. The use of χεχκοενω μένους to describe those 
ceremonially defiled, needs no remark. 

ἁγεώζεε πρὸς THY τῆς σαρκὸς καϑαρότητα. The 
verb, by a customary rule, is made to agree in number 
with the nearer subject, σποδός. But eiuc is also its 
subject, not sprinkled like the ashes and water on the 
offerer, but poured out at the altar for his behalf. 
These ‘removed legal or ritual uncleanness.”’ They 
also atoned, so far as the secular penalty was con- 
cerned, for certain offences against the secular laws of 
Moses. Their purifying efficacy was only external, 
corporeal, temporary. The Apostle now employs an 
argument ‘a minort ad majus” ‘Tf this comparatively 
worthless sacrifice had so much efficacy, much more 

22 


338 HEBREWS, OHAP. Ix. v. 14. 


will the infinitely precious sacrifice of Christ’s blood 
cleanse the conscience from sin.’ 

V.14. διὰ πνεύματος aiwviov. This is a vexed 
passage among critics, who understand variously the 
πνεῦμα αἰώνεον. First, some interpret it as meaning 
‘His divine spiritual nature’ Second, some under- 
stand it as the Holy Spirit dwelling in him and ma- 
king him ἄμωμον, and refer for confirmation to such 
passages as Isaiah 42:1, “I have put my Spirit upon 
Him; He shall bring forth judgment to the Gen- 
tiles;” Matt. 3: 16, “The heavens were opened unto 
Him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a 
dove, and lighting upon Him;” and John 8: 34, “For 
God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto Him.” 
Third, some understand by it “the eternal nature or 
principle developed in 7: 16.” And fourth, others ex- 
plain it as meaning his ‘eternal glorified state’ See 
Stuart’s Excursus XVIII. 

The commentators are mostly divided between the 
first two opinions. Of these, the first seems to me 
preferable on the following grounds. First, the supe- 
riority of the sacrifice of Christ, so suitable to the 
scope and argument, is more obvious and more di- 
rectly in contrast with the nature of the Levitical vic- 
tims. ‘They were irrational, perishing brutes; He, a 
divine and eternal being of infinite glory. Second, it 
was, in fact, the divine nature which gave dignity and 
efficacy to the sacrifice of Christ. Third, the Holy 
Spirit, though mentioned in such a multitude of places, 
is nowhere else thus designated, πνεῦμα αἰώνεον. And 


HEBREWS, CHAP. Ix. v. 14. 339 


this would be the more remarkable, if the author in- 
tended the Holy Spirit here, because the common 
epithet applied to Him, ἅγεον, would be more expres- 
sive for that interpretation. Fourth, this mode of 
designating Christ’s divine nature corresponds well 
with that employed in Rom. 1: 4, πνεῦμα ἀγεωσύνης, 
as opposed to xara σάρκα of v. 8, where Christ’s di- 
vine nature is obviously intended. (See Hodge on 
Romans, 7m loco.) And the same word, πνεῦμα, 18 em- 
ployed in 1 Tim. 3: 16, and 1 Peter 3: 18, to express 
Christ’s divine nature when contrasted with his corpo- 
real: ϑεὸς ἐφανερωϑη ἕν σαρκί, ἐδωκαεώϑη ἐν πνεύ- 
Mace. Χριστὸς ... ϑανατωϑθεὶς ἐν σαρκί, ζωοποεη- 
ϑεὶς δὲ πνεύματι. Fifth, either of the above senses 
weakens the contrast between Christ’s blood and that 
of bulls and goats, unless the third of the interpreta- 
tions enumerated be meant to embrace the divine na- 
ture. Sixth, Christ is often, in this Epistle, referred 
to in His exalted, glorified state, but nowhere in such 
terms as these. Let the reader consult Hebr. 1: 3, 4, 
9:9, 4:14) 5:9, 7226-28, 8:1, where He is de 
scribed as the brightness of the Father’s glory and ex- 
press image of his person, sitting on the right hand of 
his majesty, crowned with glory and honour, passed. 
into the heavens, author of eternal salvation to the 
obedient, holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sin- 
ners, and made higher than the heavens. The prepo- 
sition dz will have here, if the first interpretation be 
adopted, the same sense which was given to it in the 
phrase δὲ αἵματος, v.12. This, then, is the argument: 


340 HEBREWS, CHAP. Ix. v. 14. 


The sacrifice of the shedding of Christ’s blood was ac- 
companied with an eternal divine nature. Since the 
offering of the blood and life of a brute beast had 
some outward and temporary efficiency, much more 
shall this blood and life of infinite worth have a true 
spiritual efficiency. 

καϑαριεεῖ τὴν συνείδησεν, κιτιΔ. The phrase ve- 
κρῶν ἔργων has been already illustrated in the re- 
marks on 6:1 above, as meaning works proceeding 
from a heart spiritually dead, and deserving the pen- 
alty of the second death. The ‘conscience’ is that 
faculty of the soul which takes cognizance of its own 
merit or demerit. The sense of the whole phrase is, 
therefore, ‘to remove pollution and guilt from the 
soul’ The contrast is to be observed with the words 
ἁγεάζει πρὸς THY τῆς σαρκὸς καϑαρότητα. The one 
purification is outward, the other inward; the one car- 
nal, the other spiritual. 

εἰς τὸ λατρεύειν, x.r.4. This is the result to be 
attained by putting away our pollution and guilt from 
the sight of God. Atonement and justification result 
in sanctification, and both are necessary before we can 
be admitted into His presence and service in heaven. 


Ψ 


CHAPTER IX. 15—28. 


ANALYSIS. 


Tur Apostle continues his exhibition of the rela- 

tive value of the offerings and services of the two 
priesthoods. 
On account of the superior nature and efficacy of 
the offerings of Christ (διὰ τοῦτο, v. 14), He was 
made mediator of a new dispensation, that He might, 
by means of His own death, availing even to the re-. 
mission of sins under the first, secure to all who are 
called, the everlasting inheritance, v. 15; for, after 
the law of testaments generally, to which this transac- 
tion bears some strong points of resemblance, it was 
His death which gave it all its validity, vv. 16-18. 
Wherefore, the first dispensation, that it might as a 
type set forth this great, fundamental fact, was not 
ratified without blood; for Moses sprinkled with it 
the book, the people, the tabernacle, &c.; and under 
the law almost every thing was purified by blood, and 
without the shedding of blood there was no remission, 
vv. 19-22. ! 

It was then necessary,—befitting the nature of the 
two dispensations and the ends in view,—that the 
types be purified by such means as these, but that the 
heavenly and true be purified with better; for (as has 
been already shown, 8: 4-6), Christ hath entered, 
(1), not into the sanctuary built by hands and type of 


942 OCHAP, IX.—ANALYSIS. 


the true (where indeed such sacrifices would have an- 
swered), but into heaven itself, to appear now before 
God in our behalf; (2), not to offer himself often, as 
the high-priest entered the inner sanctuary every year 
with the blood of victims; for then, in the first place, 
contrary to notorious facts and the meaning of the 
type as already given in vy. 8, must He often have 
died since the foundation of the world; but now once 
for all, at the end of the world hath He appeared to 
put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself; and in the 
second place, as it is appointed to men once to die, and 
then is the judgment fixing the destinies of all, so 
Christ having once been offered up to bear the sins of 
His people, shall appear again, not to bear iniquity, 
but for salvation to those who look for Him, vv. 
23-28. 

After the consideration of the type, then, vv. 1-10, 
the superiority of Christ’s sacrifice, as developed in this 
chapter, appears, Ist, in its nature and efficacy, vv. 13, 
14; 2d, in its fundamental relationship to the new and 
better dispensation of which the first was but- typical, 
vy. 15-22; 84, in that His blood, so to speak, was 
sprinkled in the heavenly sanctuary, vv. 28, 24; and 
4th, in that it was offered only once for all, vy. 25-28. 


18 


10 
17 


18 
19 


20 


22 


HEBREWS, CHAP. Ix. v. 15. 343 


COMMENTARY. 


Kai διὰ τοῦτο διαϑήκης καινῆς μεσίτης éoriy, 


, , Ἴ ᾽ ‘A ~ 
Ὅπως, ϑανάτου γενομένου εἰς ἀπολύτρωσεν τῶν 


οὐδ ~ 4 / ’ ‘ > 
ἐπὶ τῇ πρώτῃ διαϑήκῃ παραβάσεων, THY ἐπαγγε- 
τῷ ͵ τ᾿ 
λέαν λαβωσεν ot κεχλημένοε τῆς αἰωνίου κληρο- 
, rl \ at r aay 
voutac. Ὅπου yao διαϑήχκη, ϑάνατον avayzn 
~ f Ls \ > 
φέρεσθαε τοῦ διωϑεμένου" διαϑήκη yao ἐπὶ νε- 
~ > te f ca ~ Γ 
κροῖς βεβαία, ἐπεὲ μήποτε ἰσχύεε, ὅτε ζῇ ὃ διαϑέ- 
, λυ κα 4 Cad > 
μενος ὅϑεν οὐδ᾽ ἡ πρώτη χωρὶς αἵματος éyxsxat- 
ἴω , \ / > ~ 
viotat.» “«ληϑείσης yao πασης ἐντολῆς κατὰ 
ε \ ast, x ~ ~ \ \ c= 
vouoy ὑπο Mavoews παντὶ τῷ haw, λαβὼν τὸ aiua 
- U \ “ NEIGH > 
τῶν μοσχῶν καὶ τράγων, μετὰ ὕδατος καὶ ἐρίου 
, Pa. Ὦ r ad \ , x 
xOxHLVOU καὶ ὕσσωπον, αὐτὸ TE TO βιβλίον, καὶ 
f \ \ ey “ r ~ 
πάντα tov λαὸν ἐῤρῥαντεσε, λέγων" “τοῦτο τὸ 
τ - r T > Te \ ~ 
αἷμα τῆς διαθήκης, ἧς ἐντείλατο πρὸς ὑμᾶς ὃ 
f X ν f \ My 
eos” καὶ τὴν σκηνὴν δὲ καὶ πάντα τὰ σκεύη 
- - cr , 77 4 
τῆς λειτουργίας τῷ αἵματε ὁμοίως ἐῤῥάντεσε" 
\ ? a , Ἢ 
(χαὶ σχεδὸν ἐν αἵματε πάντα καϑϑαρίζεταε κατὰ 
A la ’ , 
τὸν νόμον, καὶ χωρὶς αἑματεκχυσίας οὐ γένεταε 
ἄφεσις *) 


V. 15. δεὼ τοῦτο. τοῦτο refers to the superior 


nature and efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ, which was 
stated in v.14. dza@ with the accusative expresses the 
ground or reason; and this is strictly according to 
‘the analogy of faith’ here. Christ was appointed the 
mediator of the new covenant, out of a (prospective) 
regard to the virtue of the sacrifice and mediation he 
was to make. 


344 HEBREWS, CHAP. Ix. v. 15. 


διαϑήκης καινῆς, ‘New arrangement,’ ‘ dispensation.’ 
The adjective καενῆς here is emphatic; and hence the 
article is omitted. In this whole phrase it is strongly 
implied that the old dispensation was set aside for its 
unprofitableness: ‘ Because He was provided with a 
sacrifice which was spiritually efficacious, He is made 
the mediator of a new dispensation; the old therefore 
is no longer useful, and is no longer retained.’ 

μεσίτης. The derivation, usage, and meaning of 
this word have been already illustrated, in the remarks 
on 8: 6 above. The word, in its original meaning of 
‘oo-between,’ is general ; signifying sometimes a mere 
internuntius, which is the sense in which Moses is 
called a mediator in Gal. 3:19, 20; sometimes an um- 
pire, as in Job 9: 38, where the Septuagint use it as 
the translation of m2 (Engl. “daysman”). The use 
of the verb ἐμεσέτευσεν, in Hebr. 6: 17, may also be 
compared: ‘God interposed with an oath. It is here 
applied to Christ in its more special sense, as media- 
ting between God and man, and particularly as effect- 
ing reconciliation by his own death. Ξ 

ὅπως. This particle here expresses the end or 
object, ‘that,’ or ‘in order that.’ See Winer’s Id. 
New Test. §57. 5, p. 849. The object introduced by 
it is λώβωσεν of xexAnuévor, κιτ.Δ. But the subordi- 
nate ϑανάτου γενομένου is not excluded. The ulti- 
mate end of Christ’s becoming mediator was the re- 
demption of the called; the mediate end was the 
making of the sacrifice of his blood, which was in 
order to the other object: ‘In order that, His death 





HEBREWS, CHAP. 1x. v. 15. 345 


having occurred (or more accurately, ‘by the occur- 
rence of His death’) for the redemption, &c. the called 
might receive the promise of the eternal inheritance’ 

ἀπολύτρωσεν. This word first and properly signi- 
fies ‘redemption by a ransom,’ which in this case is the 
death of Christ. It is also used to express the simple 
idea of ‘deliverance, without reference to the means 
of effecting it. ‘This is obviously its meaning in Hebr. 
11: 35, “Others were tortured, not accepting deliver- 
ance” (ov προςδεξάμενοε τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν). Luke 
21:28, “For your redemption” (deliverance) “ draw- 
eth nigh.” But whenever it is applied to the work of 
Christ, in effecting deliverance from sin and its conse- 
quences (as in Rom. 3: 24, “ Being justified freely by 
his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ 
Jesus”), it has its proper meaning of ‘redemption by 
payment of a ransom. ‘That this is its meaning here 
is obvious from the preceding words, ϑανάτου γένομέ- 
vou, ‘His death took place for, i order to redemption 
of transgressions.’ And we may remark, in general, 
that wherever it is used of Christ’s work for us, con- 
nected words prove that it is not a deliverance effected 
by power or wisdom only, but by a ransom. In addi- 
tion to the passage from Romans, consult, in evidence, 
Eph. 1: 7, Col. 1: 14. 

τῶν ἐπὶ τῇ πρώτῃ διαϑήχῃ παραβάσεων, ‘The 
transgressions under the first dispensation.’ ἐπὲ here 
has the meaning of conjunction or concurrence of time 
(see Winer’s Id. New Test. $52. 3.¢, p. 314), as though 
it expressed sins occurring cotemporarily with the 


940 HEBREWS, OHAP. Ix. v. 15. 


first dispensation. It is in several places taught that 
the true and spiritual redemption of the believers un- 
der the Aaronic dispensation was effected by Christ’s 
sacrifice. Thus, in Rom. 8:25, “God set forth (his 
Son)... to declare his righteousness for the remission 
of sins that are past” (διὰ τὴν πάρεσεν τῶν προγεγο- 
γότων ὡμαρτημάτων). Sins committed before God 
set forth his Son are intended. The same retrospect- 
ive operation of His sacrifice is implied in y. 26 below, 
ἐπεὶ ἔδεε «αὐτὸν πολλώκες παϑεῖν ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κό- 
σμου. The implication is, that if the one sacrifice of 
Christ had not been of perpetual efficacy, it would 
have been necessary to repeat it constantly ever since 
the foundation of the world, in order to redeem be- 
lievers of the earliest ages of the world ; for that was 
a part of its design. The same truth is also taught in 
Acts 18: 38, 39, “By Him all that believe are justified 
from all things from which ye could not be justified 
by the law of Moses;” all those who lived under the 
law of Moses, as well as subsequent believers. But 
this passage does not except the redemption of more 
recent believers from the object of Christ’s sacrifice ; 
for it gives us grounds of an argument ὦ fortiori: If 
the transgressions committed under a former dispensa- 
tion were atoned for by this Priest of the new, much 
more will He cover the sins of his people under his 
own dispensation. 

of κεκλημένοι. ‘Two kinds of calling are signified 
by this family of words, καλέω, κλήσες, κλητός, in the 
New Test.; one outward, the other inward and effect- 


HEBREWS, OHAP. IX. vv. 16, 17. 347 


ual. Of the former, we have examples in Matt. 20: 
16, 22:14, πολλοὶ κλητοί, ohiyoe ἐχλεχτοί. Of the 
latter calling, we had an obvious example in Hebr. 
8:1 (χλήσεως ἐπουρανίου). Others equally obvious 
may be found in Rom. 8: 80, Ovs πρδώρισε. .. καὶ 
ἐκάλεσε... καὶ ἐδικαίωσεν... καὶ ἐδόξασε, and in 
1 Cor. 1:9, 24. xexAnuévoe here evidently signi- 
fies the effectually called; the whole tenour of Scrip- 
ture and the passages quoted (as Matt. 20: 16) prove 
that none but those who experience the spiritual and 
regenerating call of the Spirit, do “obtain the promise 
of eternal inheritance,” justification, adoption, and a 
home in heaven. 

Vv. 16,17. Ὅπου γὰρ διαϑήκη. γὰρ introduces 
the ground of the statement, that it was the mediate 
intention of Christ’s mediatorship that his death should 
take place, and through that, the redemption of his 
people: ‘He was made mediator in order to die, and 
by his death to redeem; 70), where there is a tes- 
tament, the death of the testator must precede, to 
give it validity.’ In this passage commentators are 
greatly divided as to the meaning of δεαϑήκη, some 
translating it ‘covenant’ and some ‘testament. Its 
proper meaning (from dzarityuc) is ‘ an arrangement,’ 
‘a disposition,’ of some affair. Hence it is used among 
the classics, for the most part, in the specific sense of 
‘will, ‘testament,” which is embraced in the Latin 
‘dispositio. In the Septuagint, διακιϑήκη is often used 
as the translation of m2, meaning covenants between 
man and man, as for instance that between David and 


348 HEBREWS, CHAP. ΙΧ. vv. 16, 17. 


Jonathan, 1 Sam. 18:3. In Gen. 15, 18 it is used to 
signify the Abrahamic covenant, and in Exod. 24: 6-8, 
to express the Mosaic covenant, which sense it also has 
in Hebr. 9: 20 (which is a quotation of the passage 
from Exodus to which we have just referred), and in 
Deut. 5:2. It is used to express the new covenant 
promised under the Messiah, in Jer. 31: 31-34, already 
cited in 8: 8-12 above. There is one instance, at least, 
found among the classics (Aristoph. ornithes. 439), 
where it seems to mean ‘covenant, ἤν μὴ δεαϑῶνται 
γ᾽ οἷδε Ocadyxny ἐμοί. In the cases last quoted from 
the Scriptures, we have only different forms or dispen- 
sations of the same covenant; and in the cases of the 
Mosaic and Christian, perhaps it would be better gen- 
erally to translate the word ‘dispensation’ instead of 
‘covenant.’ The former rendering is still more to be 
approved than ‘testament,’ the one which our trans- 
lators have used. This use of διαϑήχη to express, as 
is done habitually in this Epistle, the Mosaic and 
Christian economies, comes near the original import 
of the word; the adjuncts severally used, πρώτη, dev- 
τέρα, νέα, καίνη, κρείττων, αἰώνεος (as in 13: 20), 
serving, with the context, to define what economy is 
meant. In Gal. 4:24 we have both dispensations 
spoken of at once, δύο διαϑῆκαε. 

Under the first economy, which was typical, teach- 
ing the substance under shadows, Christ could not, from 
the appointment of God and the nature of the case, 
make the offering of himself. ‘This is evident from a 
comparison of Hebr. 8: 4, 5, and 9: 8-10. The pres- 


HEBREWS, CHAP. IX. vv. 16, 17. 349 


ence of the type implies the absence of the antitype, 
because the very nature of a type is to symbolize visi- 
bly an absent and unseen reality. When the time was 
come for Christ’s offermg of himself to take place, the 
former dispensation must give way to a new economy 
possessing the substance. So, the author asserts in vy. 
15 that, on account of the superior nature of Christ’s 
sacrifice, inferring a superior efficacy which never be- 
longed to the blood of bulls and goats, He was made 
a mediator of a new dispensation, that He might by 
dying secure to His people, living under both econe- 

mies, the everlasting inheritance. 

The διαϑήκη (dispensation or economy) of Christ, 
thus conceived and expressed (as to its means, ϑανά- 
του (τοῦ Χριστοῦ), and its ends, τῆς «αἰωνίου xAnoovo- 
fetcec), resembles, in some of its general and important 
features, a testament among men; by which I under- 
stand the Apostle to illustrate the subject im the verses 
before us. The foundation of this comparison is laid 
in v. 15, where the new διαϑήκη is made to derive its 
efficacy from the death of the wsecirns, to whom it 
belonged; and through this death it confers, on all 
who are called, a title to an everlasting inheritance. 
And the transition was more natural, because of the 
common usage of δεαϊϑήκη to denote a testament. 

The signification of “ covenant,” however consonant 
to Septuagint and New Test. usage, is philologically 
incapable of being carried through vy. 16, 17, even 
though we admitted that the context would limit the 
statement im v. 16 to such covenants as were ratified 


350 HEBREWS, CHAP, Ix. vv. 16, 17. 


by slain victims; a supposition by which some attempt 
to sustain that rendering. First: if διαϑήκη means 
covenant, δεαϑεμένου, by the most natural correspond- 
ence of terms, would mean covenanter. (Let the reader 
compare the construction in 9: 16, with that of the 
citation from Aristophanes, on a previous page.) But 
the ὁ δεαϑέμενος did not die; for He was God the 
Father. This difficulty becomes insurmountable when 
we remember that δεαϑέμενος is used of testators, but 
never of victims slain to ratify covenants. Second: 
the word vexgog (in the masculine, v. 17) is ‘often used 
᾿ οὗ dead men, but never, except as a qualifying adjec- 
tive, of dead animals. In this adjective sense, it is 
applied to the works of unregenerate men, in a meta- 
phorical sense ; νέχρα ἔργα, in Hebr. 6:1, 9: 14; to 
«ἁμαρτία in Rom. 7: 8; and to πέστες in James 2: 17, 
20, 26. Even of its application as an adjective to 
beasts, I can find but one example, Eccles. 9 : 4, ὁ κύων 
ὃ ζῶν αὐτὸς ὠἀγαϑὸς ὑπὲρ τὸν heovra τὸν νέχκρον 
(Septuagint). The interpretation, therefore, however 
it may ease the sense, violates common usages of the 
language, and assumes a usage for itself without sup- 
port from examples. Third: even admitting that the 
context naturally suggests covenants which are ratified 
by the slaying of victims, still the language of these 
verses seems too general for limitation to such special 
covenants, and the law is too generally laid down for 
the known usages in ratifying covenants. And if it be 
said that the context limits us to the conception of cov- 
enants ratified by the blood of victims, it may be said 


ὦ... 


HEBREWS, CHAP. IX. v. 16. 351 


with equal plausibility, on the other side, that it limits 
us to the conception of dispensations or dispositions 
that take their force from the death of the disposer. 
But what kind of dispositions are these among men? 
Obviously, testaments. The only difficulty in the 
way of the view which we have given, is this: that 
it may seem unwarrantable to suppose the author 
using the same word in two unlike significations in so 
near a proximity. This does not appear insuperable; 
for nothing is more certain than that a multitude of 
words do bear different senses in different contexts ; 
and where the context changes, even though it be in 
the compass of two sentences, it is not impossible that 
a change of sense may take place in the leading term, 
even as it does when the two differing contexts are far 
asunder. No one seems to have made the obvious re- 
flection, that the aspect of the διαϑήκη must needs 
change, as the point of view is changed from which it 
isseen. In v. 15 (διαϑήκης καινῆς μεσίτης), it is con- 
templated as the dispensation of the Father ; in v. 16, 
it is viewed as the Son’s. Now as it is God the 
Father’s, it is ‘a dispensation ;’ but as it is the trans- 
action of the dying Mediator, it is a ‘last will and tes- 
tament.’ In vv. 15 and 16 the Apostle passes from the 
one to the other point of view. 

V.16. φέρεσθαι. This phrase is translated by 
Wahl, necesse afferri testimonium de morte, &c. taking 
death (ϑάνατον) in the sense of ‘news of his death.’ 
Bretschneider translates it ferrt sermone (‘that his 
death be related’), 1. 6. constare oportet; and thence 


352 HEBREWS, OHAP. Ix. vv. 17, 18. 


he would derive the sense ‘be brought forward, ‘ad- 
duced, ‘shown.’ Kuinoél translates pégsoaz, insequt, 
‘to ensue.’ The sense given by Bretschneider corres- 
ponds best with the context and the usage of the 
verb. Let the student consider the derivation of the 
English verb ‘relate’ (in the sense of recount) from 
the Latin. 

V.17. ἐπὶ νεκροῖς, ‘A testament is of force over 
the dead’ The force of ἐπὲ here may be illustrated 
by a comparison with ὁ λαὸς γὰρ ἐπ᾿ αὐτῇ vevouodé- 
tyro (7:11). Consult also Winer’s Id. New Test. 
$52. c, p. 815. The sense seems to be nearly that of 
‘ sub conditione. ‘A testament is of force on condition 
of the death of the testator,’ 

ἐπεὶ μήποτε, x.r.A. The use of μήποτε, instead of 
the direct negative ov, seems here to require some 
explanation. The latter is certainly the negative 
commonly used after ἐπεί, See Hebr. 10:2. Bohme 
conceives that μὴ is here employed to give to ἐσχύεε a 
stronger and more general negation than ov would 
convey. Itis more probable that it is employed be- 
cause the writer considered the case generally and 
hypothetically, and not individually. See Winer’s Id. 
New Test. $59. 5, pp. 875, 876. The words may at 
any rate be translated with great certainty, ‘Since it 
(a testament) is never binding whilst the testator 
lives.’ 

V.18. ὅϑεν. The illation expressed by this word 
was clearly stated in the Analysis, to which the reader 
should recur. The testamentary nature of Christ’s re- 


HEBREWS, CHAP. Ix. v. 19. 353 


deeming covenant was so prevalent, as to imply neces- 
sarily the death of Him, its mediator, in order to the 
valid enjoyment of its benefits by his heirs. Therefore 
it was that the first dispensation was not sanctioned or 
instituted without blood. The force of this inference 
is in the fact that the first dispensation was typical of 
the second; and therefore ought to bear an accurate 
resemblance to it. The blood, by the shedding of 
which Aaronic institutions were sanctioned, is under- 
stood as implying, of course, the death of the typical 
victims. The blood-shedding was a shedding of the 
life. “The blood is the life thereof.” 

ἐγκεκαένεσται. ‘This verb is found in the Septua- 
gint in three senses. First, it is employed in 2 Chron. 
15: 8, for 3n, ‘to repair,’ scilicet the altar; second, it 
is used to translate 729, ‘to dedicate or consecrate’ a 
house, as in Deut. 20: 5; third, it is used in the sense 
of ‘ratifying, ‘sanctioning, as in 1 Sam. 11: 14, for 
win: “Let us go to Gilgal, and ratify (Engl. version 
writes ‘renew’) the kingdom there.” Wahl translates 
the verb, éastituo, sancio. This third meaning is to be 
preferred in this place. In Hebr. 10: 20, ἣν évexaive 
σεν ἡμῖν ὁδὸν πρόςφατον καὶ ζῶσαν, we are almost 
compelled to adopt the sense of “consecrating ;” and 
it is therefore best.to adopt it in the text under dis- 
cussion also. The reference of the Apostle here is 
therefore particularly to the sacrifices by which, as we 
read in the 8th chapter of Leviticus, Aaron, his sons, 
and the tabernacle, were set apart. 

V.19. χατὰ νόμον. The ‘law’ here mentioned 

23 


354 HEBREWS, CHAP. IX. Vv. 20, 22. 


is, doubtless, a command enjoining upon Moses this re- 
cital of the precepts of the moral and ritual law to the 
people. Such a command is nowhere recorded, but it 
was no doubt given; for we find in Exod. 24: 3, 7, that 
such a recital was made. The events to which refer- 
ence is here made by the Apostle, were undoubtedly 
those related in Exod. 24: 4-8. In this passage there 
is no mention of the blood of goats specifically (but 
only of burnt-offerings, and peace-offerings of oxen), 
nor of the water, nor of the scarlet wool and hyssop, 
nor of the sprinkling of the book. So likewise, in the 
40th chapter of Exodus, where the pitching of the 
tabernacle is related, there is no account of the sprink- 
ling of it and its furniture, which is stated in v. 21. 
None of these things are improbable in themselves. 
The last is mentioned by Josephus, Antiq. Jud. 3. 8. 6. 
Moses’ narratives are not all full in their details. The 
account of these circumstances had probably been 
handed down by tradition; and, as Jude could judge 
with regard to the tradition of Enoch’s prophecy, and 
Michael’s contest for the body of Moses, the Apostle 
here was enabled to decide infallibly concerning the 
accuracy of these particulars. Moses’ silence is no 
proof that these circumstances did not occur; the 
Apostle’s assertion is authoritative that they did. 

V.20. τοῦτο τὸ αἷμα, x.t.4. These words are 
evidently intended as a free quotation of Exod. 24: 8, 
to which they agree in all substantial respects. 

VY. 22. ‘This verse is improperly placed in paren- 
thesis by Vater. It is properly additional to the fore- 


HEBREWS, CHAP. Ix. v. 22. 355 


going ; indeed, it is but a general summing up of pre- 
ceding particulars, and a statement of the induction 
from them. In its connexion it is important, as show- 
ing the typical and spiritual import of the Levitical 
purifications and sacrifices. Because in the true, spirit- 
ual, and efficacious dispensation of the antitype, all de- 
pended on His death, so in the foreshadowing dispen- 
sation of types, almost every rite was attended with a 
sacrificial death or blood-shedding. And especially 
was this true of a// those parts of the typical dispensa- 
tion, where release from ceremonial guilt was bestowed. 
In every case such ceremonial atonement was only pro- 
cured through blood-shedding; the Holy Ghost fore- 
shadowing thereby this great truth, that there can be 
no pardon of sin in the perfect and absolute govern- 
ment of God, without an adequate atonement by the 
death of the sinner or his substitute. The 22d verse 
is therefore to be regarded as a part, yea, the main 
part, the sum, of the illation introduced by ὅϑεν in 
v.18. Thus, all the bloody sacrifices of the Levitical 
rites go to prove the necessity of an atoning or sacrifi- 
cial death by Christ. 


2 r = Ν ΄ ~ τὶ ~ 
23 avayxn οὖν ta μὲν ὑποδείγματα τῶν ὃν τοῖς 
> ~ ’ r > Ἁ Ἁ Ἁ 
oveavois, τούτοις καϑαρίέζεσθαε: αὐτὰ δὲ τὰ 
Ἴ Fe : 
24 ἐπουράνεα κρείττοσε ϑυσέαες παρὰ ταύτας. Ov 
\ cr ~ I / 
yao εἰς χειροποίητα ayia εἰρῆλθεν ὁ Χριστός, 
7} ~ 2 ~ 3 2 Ε a aS \ 3 
αντέτυπα τῶν αληϑενῶν, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς αὐτὸν τὸν οὐρα- 
Ul ~ ? ~ ~ if ~ ~ 
γον, νῦν ἐμφανισϑῆναε τῷ xe0osan@ τοῦ ϑεοῦ 


356 HEBREWS, OHAP. IX. V. 23. 


ΑΒΓ « ~ > fa ld r c ‘4 
25 ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν" οὐδ᾽, iva πολλάκις προςφέρη éavror, 
’ , 3 
ὥςπερ ὁ ἀρχεερεὺς εἰξέρχεταιε εἰς τὰ ἅγιε κατ 
> > c » , , ‘ ‘ 
26 ἐνεαυτὸν ἐν αἵματε ἀλλοτρίῳ, (ἐπεὶ ἔδεε αὐτὸν 
A ~ > Ἁ ~ , δ ~ 
πολλάκις παϑεῖν ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου") νῦν 
΄ Ἴ , - = Pe 
δὲ ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων, εἰς addérnow 
ἁμαρτίας, διὰ τῆς ϑυσίας αὑτοῦ πεφανέρωταε. 
‘ U ΄ ~ > / ca 
27 Καὶ xa ὅσον anoxetac τοῖς ἀνϑρώποις ἅπαξ 
28 > ¢ ~ \ \ ~ / ὶ cr ᾿ ε 
28 ἀποϑανεῖν, μετὰ δὲ τοῦτο κρίσες " οὕτω [καὶ] ὁ 
Χριστὸς ἅπαξ προςενεχϑεὶς εἰς τὸ πολλῶν ave- 
γεγκεῖν ἁμαρτίας, ἐκ δευτέρου χωρὶς ἁμαρ- 
τίας ὀφϑήσεταε, τοῖς «αὐτὸν ἔαρος τους εἰς 
σωτηρίαν. 


V. 238. ἀνάγκη οὖν, #.r.4. For the meaning and 
connexion of thought, see the Analysis. The logical 
inference of ovy is from the relationship-just developed 
between the two dispensations. Because the first is 
typical of the second, and the second is one which 
necessarily implies the sacrificial death of its surety, 
they both required their respective sacrifices ; the fore- 
shadowing dispensation its typical sacrifices, and the 
true dispensation its better victim. : 

ὑποδείγματα, ‘Patterns. The same word is used 
for nearly the same idea in 8: 5 above, and needs no 
more illustration here. It embraces also the τὰ σκεύη 
of v. 21. 

καϑαρέζεσϑαι. This verb belongs both to the 
types, ὑποδείγματα, and to the antitypes, αὐτὼ τὰ éxov- 
gavea: but it must be understood suitably to their 
respective natures. The human priest, being sinful, 
needed to have his person and his official acts cleansed 


HEBREWS, CHAP. Ix. v. 24. 357 


from guilt by a ceremonial atonement. The very tab- 
ernacle in which, and utensils with which, he minis- 
tered, being the work of sinful, human hands, and 
their materials the gift of sinful men, needed, in a 
sense, a similar purification. And every worshipper 
who came into this tabernacle, through this priest, ob- 
tained remission, was cleansed from guilt, only through 
blood. So, in a manner not exactly similar, but analo- 
gous, Christ was cleansed, not from personal, but im- 
puted guilt, by the sacrifice of his human part. He 
has now carried the virtues, so to speak, of this atoning 
sacrifice, into the heavenly sanctuary in our behalf, 
and has thus prepared the way for our peaceable ap- 
proach to God. We have thus “a new and living 
way, which he hath consecrated for us through the 
vail, that is to say, his flesh.” Hebr. 10: 20. 

V. 24. γάρ. The connexion of thought here indi- 
cated by this conjunction, seems not to be a proof that 
the heavenly sanctuary needed better sacrifices, from 
the fact that Christ has entered it with his blood. It 
is rather a proof that, inasmuch as Christ ministers 
in the true sanctuary to make atonement for sins be- 
fore God, therefore he must have a better sacrifice ; 
since the case requires it. In other words, we must 
conceive the γὰρ as relating rather to χρεέττοσε (ϑυ- 
σέαες) than to ἀνάγκη. The ὠνάγκη is inferred by 
οὖν (v. 23) from the foregoing; in χρείττοσε ϑυσίαες 
is an assertion of the superiority of the sacrifices for 
the heavenly sanctuary, implying the superiority of 
Christ’s sacrifice who had entered into it. So that γὰρ 


358 HEBREWS, OHAP. Ix. vv. 25, 26. 


clears up the implication: ‘Therefore Christ’s sacrifice 
is better, for he did not enter into a sanctuary made 
with hands, the types of the true, but into heaven 
itself’ This best comports with the whole scope of 
the context. 

ἐμφανεσϑῆναι. This is a forensic term, signifying 
‘to appear in court,’ as a plaintiff or advocate. In the 
former of these senses, it is used for the appearance of 
the chief-priests, elders, and Tertullus against Paul, in 
Acts 24:1 and 25:2,15. In the latter sense it is 
used here. Christ appears before the bar of God, 
ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, ‘on our behalf, 

τῷ προφςώπῳ τοῦ ϑεοῦ. So the Septuagint trans- 
late D> °2B in Ps. 42: ὃ, and "28 of Ps. 95:2. The 
divine presence intended by the Psalmist in such 
expressions is that of Jehovah manifested in the tem- 
ple or tabernacle. Christ has presented himself be- 
fore God in that highest sense, of which this is but a 
shadow. 

Vv. 25, 26. . οὐδ᾽, ἵνα πολλάκις προςφέρῃ ἑαυτὸν 

., ἐπεὶ ἔδεε αὐτὸν πολλάκις παϑεῖν, κιτιΔ. The 

reasoning here is easy and obvious: it is less easy to 
account for the syntax of the sentence. The words 
ἐπεὶ ἔδεε, x.7.A. are evidently an appeal to fact in proof 
of the negative assertion, οὐδ᾽, iva πολλάώκες, κιτ.λ.: 
‘Had the sacrifice of Christ been such as required repe- 
tition, like the yearly offerings of the Jewish high- 
priest, then must Christ have suffered many times 
already since the origin of the human race. But we 
know that this has not been so; on the contrary (νῦν 


HEBREWS, CHAP. Ix. vv. 25, 26. 359 


δὲ ἅπαξ, x.r.4.), the fact is, that Christ has been mani- 
fested recently, and that but once, to put away sin by 
offering himself’ It would seem that ἔδεε expresses 
the latter clause or apodosis of a conditional sentence 
of which the protasis is left to be supplied, and in 
which the condition is implied to be already definitely 
decided. In such a construction, the past tenses of the 
indicative would be regularly used, but the conditional 
meaning would usually be marked by ἄν, which is not 
here present. Ifthe ellipsis were supplied, the sen- 
tence would stand thus: és, εἰ πολλάκες προσέφερεν 
ἑαυτόν, ἔδεε av αὐτὸν πολλάχες παϑεῖν ἀπὸ καταβὸο- 
λῆς κόσμου. But referring to Kiihner, $260. 2. Rem. 
3, p. 354, we learn that it is not unusual to find ὧν 
omitted, especially with a class of verbs of which ἔδεε 
is one, in such elliptical, conditional expressions. 
συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων. ‘This phrase, with the dif- 
ference that the genitive singular, κέῶνος, 1s used, oc- 
eurs in Matt. 13:39, ὁ δὲ ϑερεσμός, ouvvréhecee τοῦ 
αἰῶνός éorev; 13: 40, 49, οὕτως ἔσταε ἐν τῇ συντελείᾳ 
τοῦ αἰῶνος ; 24:3, τί τὸ σημεῖον τῆς σῆς παρουσίας, 
καὶ τῆς συντελείας τοῦ κόσμου; and 28: 20, καὶ ἐδού, 
ἐγὼ pew? ὑμῶν εἰμε πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας, ἕως τῆς συντε- 
λείας τοῦ αἰῶνος. Perhaps in all these cases the mean- 
ing is the end of the world, or of the present state of 
things. But the phrase is here plural; and as the 
Jews were accustomed to distinguish the old and new 
dispensations, the Mosaic and the Messianic, 7 D249 
and 823 D217, some understand by the expression here, 
the juncture of the two dispensations, equivalent to, 


360 HEBREWS, OHAP. Ix. v. 28. 


‘in media mundi etate) ‘in confinio veteris et novi 
Test., ‘in confinio seculorum. Thus Kiittneri Hypom. 
Others translate the, phrase, ‘in the last of the dispen- 
sations,’ that is, in the last of the ages of the world. 
Compare Winer’s Id. New Test. $52. ¢, p. 814: ‘ sub 
Jinem mundi? Others, among whom are Stuart and 
Bloomfield, render it, ‘at the close of the Mosaic econ- 
omy. The expression may be illustrated by 1 Cor. 
10: 11, ἡμῶν, εἰς οὖς τὰ τέλη TOY «ἰώνων κατήντησεν. 
The second is the more probable sense, both on ac- 
count of the plural form of the phrase, and the consid- 
eration that the Jews regarded the messianic not only 
as the last dispensation, but as the completion of all 
the previous ones. 

διὰ τῆς ϑυσίας. Some translate this preposition 
here, ‘with ;’ giving it a sense similar to that which 
we attributed to it in vv. 12; 14, οὐδὲ δὲ αἵματος tea- 
γων .... ὃς διὰ πνεύματος αἰωνίον ἑαντὸν προσήνεγκεν, 
as signifying one’s ‘equipments, or the circumstances 
and relations under which he does something. But it 
is far better to give it its customary force with the 
genitive, that of instrument or means, and refer it to 
ἀϑέτησεν : ‘He was manifested for (with a view to) 
the putting away of sin dy the sacrifice of himself? 

V.28. πολλῶν. The proper force of this adjec- 
tive has been sufficiently explained in the remarks on 
2: 10 above, to which the reader is referred. 

ἀνενεγκεῖν ἁμαρτίας. This passage clearly proves 
the substitutionary character of Christ’s death. εἰς τὸ 
ἀνενεγκεῖν is undoubtedly the infinitive of the object: 


HEBREWS, OMAP. Ix. v. 28. 361 


‘Christ was once presented a order to bear away, 
‘with a view to bearing away the sins of many.” To 
bear the sins of any one is to sustain the guilt and the 
punishment of it. Let thé-reader compare the lan- 
guage of 1 Pet. ὃ: 24, ὃς τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν αὐτὸς 
ἀνήνεγκεν ἐν τῷ σώματε αὑτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον" and of 
Isaiah 53: 12, 8@) ὈΞΎ ΝΏΤΙ δ, which the Septuagint 
render, χαὶ αὐτὸς ἁμαρτίας πολλῶν ἀνήνεγκεν. Stu- 
art’s XI Xth Excursus may be consulted. 

χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας. This is the antithesis of προς- 
ἐνεχϑεὶς εἰς τὸ πολλῶν ἀνενεγκεῖν Guaortias. Some 
understand by it that Christ shall come the second 
time ‘ without sin-offering ;’ giving to it the sense of 
the Hebrew pes and myen. But the sense is better 
understood by comparing the phrase with 2 Cor, 5: 21, 
Τὸν yao μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν, ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν 
ἐποίησεν, ἵνα ἡμεῖς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη ϑεοῦ ὃν 
αὐτῷ. The freedom from sin at his second coming is 
the contrast of his sin-bearmg at his first. In both 
cases it is imputed sin which is intended. At his sec- 
ond coming he will bear no imputed guilt; for, agree- 
ably to the analogy of man’s one death and judgment, 
He hath by one sacrifice cleansed all imputed guilt 
away. 

εἰς σωτηρίαν. These words depend on ὀφιϑήσεται. 
As v. 26 assumed that in past time Christ had not often 
suffered, so vv. 27, 28 seem designed to show that, ac- 
cording to the established constitution of things, He 
cannot die again in future. When He comes again it 
will be to the judgment, and to award salvation. 


CHAPTER X. 1—18. 


ANALYSIS. 


Tue author finishes the comparison of the sacrifices 
under the two dispensations, showing the insufficiency 
of the former, and the efficacy of the latter, and thus, 
the necessity or reason of the offering of Christ. More 
particularly : 

As was prefigured by the types, Christ had made 
an offering of Himself more excellent than they (ch. 9), 
for (γὰρ) the offermgs under the law, being but shad- 
ows of future good things, were wholly unavailing to 
perfect those who presented them. Otherwise, 1st, 
would they not have ceased to be offered, having ac- 
complished the work of purifying the worshippers ? 
vv. 1, 2; 2d, instead of this, however, there was a rec- 
ognition of sins by them year after year, v. 3; for, 3d, 
it was not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to 
take away sins, v.4. Hence, 4th, the Old Test. pre- 
dicting the coming of Christ into the world, represents 
Him as declaring that these sacrifices could not satisfy 
God, and that He himself was come to render that sat- 
isfaction, vv. 5-7, thus abolishing them as ineffectual, 
and substituting Himself as all-sufficient; by which 
will of God setting them aside, and substituting Him, 
we have been redeemed by the once offering of Christ, 
vy. 8-10; 5th, moreover the Levitical priests all stood 
day after day offering their unavailing sacrifices; but 


CHAP. X.—ANALYSIS. 363 


Christ having offered His sacrifice once, had forever 
set down on the right hand of God, awaiting the con- 
summation in due time of the glorious results. For by 
one offering He has forever secured the perfection of 
all the redeemed, vv. 11-14; 6th, thus the Holy Spirit 
witnesseth in the Old Test. Scriptures; for, to the an- 
nouncement of a new dispensation the Lord annexes a 
promise to rectify the hearts and forgive the sins of 
His people; thus plainly implying the perfection of 
the offering, vv. 15-18. 

This closes the third and last great topic in the 
general argument: the rest of the Epistle is chiefly 
practical and hortatory. 


364 HEBREWS, CHAP. X. V. l. 


COMMENTARY. 


X. 1 Σκεὰν γὰρ ἔχων ὃ νόμος τῶν μελλόντων aya- 
ϑῶν, οὐκ αὐτὴν τὴν εἰκόνα τῶν πραγμάτων, κατ᾽ 
ἐνεαυτὸν ταῖς αὐταῖς ϑυσίαες, as προςφέρουσεν εἰς 
τὸ δεηνεκές, οὐδέποτε δύναταε τοὺς προςερχομένους 

2 τελεεῶσαε᾽ ἐπεὶ [οὐκ] ἂν ἐπαύσαντο προςφερόμε- 
vat, διὰ τὸ μηδεμέαν ἔχεεν ἔτε συνείδησεν ἅμαρ- 
τιῶν τοὺς λατρεύοντας, ἅπαξ, κχκεχαϑαρμένους ; 

3 (ALN ἐν αὐταῖς ἀνώμνησες ὡμαρτεῶν κατ᾽ ἐνεαυτόν. 

4 ᾿Αδύνατον γὰρ aiua ταύρων καὶ τράγων ἀφαιρεῖν 
ἁμαρτίας. 


V.1. Xxiav γάρ. To perceive the force of γὰρ 
as a connective here, we must bear in mind the con- 
trast between the old δεαϑϑήκη and the new, between 
the offerings of the old and those of the new, which 
runs throughout the latter part of the last chapter. 
See, for instance, 9: 15, 18, 23, 24, 26 (νῦν ἐπὶ συντε- 
λείᾳ τῶν «ἰώνων), and 28. The idea of ‘the two dis- 
pensations with their respective offerings’ is still prom- 
inent in the writer’s mind, as it continues to be to the 
end of the discussion. Thus, in 10:1, we have ὁ νόμος, 
implying a contrast with the gospel; in v. 5 we find 
εἰξερχόμενος εἰς τὸν κόσμον, Where the newly incar- 
nate Redeemer is tacitly contrasted with the ceremo- 
nial system which had been so long in possession of 
the Church. In v. 9 we have προςφορών, x.1.2. aire 
veg κατὰ TOY νόμον προςφέρονταε, Offset against the 


HEBREWS; CHAP: x.°v.° 1. 365 


offering of Christ which supersedes them. In v. 9 
also, τὸ πρῶτον is explicitly set against τὸ δεύτερον. 
In vy. 16 it is said with emphasis, αὕτη 7 διαϑήκη 
(‘this is the covenant’), as distinguished from the 
previous one. The conjunction γὰρ therefore intro- 
duces the assertion of the shadowy and ineffectual 
character of the Old Test. offerings, as the ground or 
reason for that inferiority to Christ’s offering which 
was the general idea running through the previous 
passage. It is only in respect of these that the com- 
parison is made: ‘The old dispensation by its offer- 
ings, which were merely typical, accomplished nothing 
towards satisfying the claims (the ϑέλημα of vv. 7, 9, 
10) of infinite justice and mercy; Christ, having come 
into the world, effects the perfect work by offering 
himself” Such is the general statement introduced by 
γάρ, as the ground of that assertion which constitutes 
the scope of the 9th chapter. 

Σκιὰν.... οὐκ αὐτὴν τὴν εἰκόνα. These words 
indicate a shadow or outline, an imperfect representa- 
tion, and not ‘the very image’ Wahl, in his defini- 
tions of εἰκών, says, it is effigies expressa et solida. 
In Col. 2:17, σκεὰ is contrasted with σώμα, shadow 
with substance; & (viz. σαββάτων, νουμηνίας, ἕορ- 
τῆς; #.0-A.) ἐστεν σκεὰ τῶν μελλόντων, TO δὲ GALL TOU 
Χριστοῦ. This may assist us in understanding the 
meaning in the passage before us. 

τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαϑῶν. These words have al- 
ready been seen, occurring in 9:11 above; and were 
there interpreted as meaning the benefits of redemp- 


366 HEBREWS, CHAP. X. V. 2. 


tion, secured by Christ, and called ‘future’ (μελλόν- 
tay), because they were typified and not secured by 
the Levitical institutions. Thus, in Hebr. 11: 18, 39, 
40, these good things, still future to the saints of the 
Mosaic dispensation, are called ἐπαγγελέας, which they 
saw afar off, embraced by faith, and hoped for. These 
blessings and benefits of the gospel dispensation in- 
clude, of course, the means by which they were se- 
cured, the work of Christ. 

τελειῶσαι. As was stated when this word first 
met us in 2:10 above, and as has been indicated fre- 
quently since, the completing or perfecting has refer- 
ence to the proposed condition to which the subject in 
hand is to be brought. Here it evidently describes 
the complete work of justification and_ sanctification, 
the complete redemption, which the προςερχόμενοε are 
presumed to seek through their offerings. As has 
been well said by another, it signifies “to supply them 
with all they need, and advance them to all of which 
they are capable.” The meaning is the same in v. 14 
below. : 

V. 2. οὐκ. In most of the ancient Mss. and many 
others, some Fathers, some Mss. of the Vulgate, Cop- 
tic, Armenian, and other translations, and almost all 
the early editions, this word is found. Those critics 
therefore who omit it do so against the current of 
authority. If it is omitted, the sentence must be read 
without an interrogation; and a sense is thus reached 
substantially the same. 

ἅπαξ κεκαϑαρεσμένους. In this verse we see how 


HEBREWS, CHAP. X. Vv. 2. 367 


fundamental and complete the atonement of Christ 
was, as securing the sanctification of all who should be 
justified; putting away sins not only from the sight 
of God, but from the heart. The worshippers are rep- 
resented as so cleansed, when once the effectual offer- 
ing is made, that they have no more conscience of sins. 
There could not be a good conscience (μηδεμίαν συνεί- 
δησεν ὡμαρτεῶν), 80 long as the heart remained cor- 
rupt. A corrupt nature was an essential part of the 
original curse for sim. This whole curse is removed 
by the atonement of Christ ; the guilt by the merit of 
his blood, and the corruption by that spiritual influ- 
ence which He purchases for us. It is instructive to 
notice how directly this double purgation is traced up 
to the blood of Christ as its means, in many places of 
this Epistle. In 8:1 we read of Christ’s purgation of 
sins (χαϑαρεσμὸν ὡμαρτεῶν), as made by himself (δὲ 
ἑαυτοῦ). In 9:14 it is said, “The blood of Christ 
shall purge our conscience from dead works to serve 
the living God;” where the result of the purgation, 
our serving the living God, plainly shows that it is 
sanctifying as well as justifying. In 10: 1, 2 this pur- 
gation is the gospel τελεέωσες, a work which, we have 
abundantly proved, is a complete redemption: and in 
10: 14 we read that “by one offermg He hath per- 
fected forever those that are redeemed” (τοὺς ἀγεαζο- 
μένους). All of redemption, therefore, justification, 
sanctification, is secured in the offering of Christ ; for 
this offering meets and remedies the whole of the curse 
of the fall. 


908 HEBREWS, CHAP. X. Vv. 3, 4. 


V.3. (AAW ἐν αὐταῖς ἀνώμνησες, #.r.2. These 
words present an idea opposed to οὐκ ay ἐπαύσαντο 
προςφερόμενωι. As in 9:8 above, the author teaches 
that while the Levitical sacrifices typified that of 
Christ, in due time to be offered, they showed, by 
their continued repetition, their own inadequacy to 
make the requisite atonement. For typical purposes, 
they were allowed to remove certain temporal penal- 
ties; but they could not satisfy eternal justice. This 
is explicitly declared in the following verse. 

V.4. ἀδύνατον γάρ. Let the reader compare 
7:18 above, where it is declared that there was 
“a disannulling of the commandment going before, 
for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.” The 
Apostle seems now, in v. 4, to make a simple appeal 
to the natural judgment of his readers, and the princi- 
ples of religion, to settle this point. It is not possible 
that the blood of irrational animals can truly atone for 
the sins of rational souls. This truth is obvious in its 
own light. There is, in the nature of things, no rele- 
vancy or adaptation of the means to the end. But the 
Apostle proceeds to show that this assertion is agree- 
able to the tenour of the Old Test. Scriptures. 


> “ > \ t ᾿ ί , 
Aw εἰςερχόμενος εἰς τὸν κόσμον, λέγεε" “ Θυσέαν 


σι 


‘ , γὴ oe Ἀ ᾿ 
καὶ προςφορὰν οὐκ ἠϑέλησας, σῶμα δὲ κατηρτίσω 
« ’ , > > ‘ 
“ot, Ohoxavrouata καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτέας οὐκ εὐδό- 
U4 3 > Qs ot " , ᾿, 
xnoas* τότε εἶπον" ἐδοὺ ἥκω, (ἐν κεφαλέδε βιβλέον 
’ ~ ~ ~ c ΄ \ ΄ 
γέγραπταε περὶ ἐμοῦ,) τοῦ ποιῆσαε, ὃ ϑεὸς, τὸ ϑὲ- 


“1 o 


HEBREWS, OHAP. X. vy. 5. 369 


f ? Ld f 
8 Anuca σου." ‘Avaregoy λέγων" “ore ϑυσίαν καὶ 
X L X U 
προςφορὰν καὶ ὁλοκαυτώματα καὶ περὲ ἁμαρτίας 
οὐκ ἡϑέλησας, οὐδὲ εὐδοκησας" (αἵτενες κατὰ τὸν 
, ’ , ” > , 
9 νόμον προςερέρονται,) τότε εἰρηκεν" “ἰδοὺ ἥκω 
- - c A \ r la 6 7 ~ 
τοῦ ποιῆσωε [ὃ ϑεὸς] τὸ ϑέλημα oov”* ἀναιρεῖ 
\ ~ a \ i Γ Ἂ > ik ΄ 
10 τὸ πρῶτον, ἵνα τὸ δεύτερον στήσῃ ὃν ᾧ ϑελήματε 
ε γ λ ~ ~ ~ if 
ἡγεασμένοε ἐσμὲν διὰ τῆς προςφορᾶς τοῦ σώματος 
en ~ an δον A be 
[τοῦ] Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐφαπαξ. 


V.5. Ae εἰςερχόμενος, κιτ.. deo may be re 
garded as referring to v. 4, “The blood of bulls and 
of goats cannot take away sin: wherefore Christ, com- 
ing into the world, saith,” &e. Or we may, with per- 
haps greater propriety, refer it to the whole scope of 
vv. 1-4, which is, that the ceremonial law, being 
shadowy and prefigurative, not substantially effica- 
cious, could not by its offerings perfect the worship- 
pers. For this reason, Christ comes and substitutes a 
more efficacious offering, His ‘obedience unto death,’ 

The reference of vv. 5-7 is to Psalm 40: 6-8. 
This passage presents one of the most vexed questions 
among interpreters, both as to the propriety of the 
Apostle’s reference of this Psalm to the Messiah, and 
as to his adoption of the obviously erroneous translation 
of the Septuagint, σῶμα κατηρτίσω jot, for Ἢ OID DTS 
(amine ears hast thou opened [or bored ]) in v. 7 of the 
Psalm. It may be remarked, in advance, that the 
author strictly follows the Septuagint in his whole 
quotation, except in the substitution of εὐδόκησας for 
γτησας at the end of ν. 6, and in connecting τοῦ zoz7- 
oac with ἥκω, mn v. 7% A fuller discussion of the 

24 


370 HEBREWS, OHAP. X. V. 5. 


proper messianic character of this Psalm than would 
be appropriate here, may be seen in Hengstenberg’s 
Christol. Vol. I. and in Stuart’s Excursus XX. To the 
reverent believer in inspiration (and we would repeat, 
that it is only in this character we are willing to ap- 
proach the exposition of Scripture at all), the sufficient 
proof is that an inspired author has here ascribed the 
words of the Psalm to Christ. All that the onus pro- 
bandi demands of us, therefore, is to show that such 
an application of the Psalm to the Messiah is possible, 
yea probable, by removing the objections which skep- 
tical interpreters have urged to this interpretation, 
from the contents of the Psalm itself. It has been ob- 
jected that this application is a mere blunder of the 
Apostle, arising out of his following the_mistranslation 
of the Septuagint above mentioned. But the words so 
mistranslated are not the ones essential to the messi- 
anic application, nor does the Apostle lay the stress 
upon them, as will be shown; and while the exact 
meaning is not preserved by the Septuagint, the scope 
of the sense is retained with sufficient accuracy. It is 
objected, again, that there is no station in the Mes- 
siah’s life where all the language of the Psalm can be 
made appropriate to him; for if we suppose it uttered 
at his incarnation (eicsgyousvos εἰς τὸν κόσμον), it is 
inconsistent in speaking of deliverances and triumphs 
as past, Ps. 40: 2-5, which were not yet experienced; 
and if after his resurrection, it is equally inconsistent 
in referring, in vv. 11, 18, to troubles still to come. 
The answer is twofold. The objection overlooks the 


HEBEEWS; OWAP. XK) Ὁ δὲ 371 


well-known dramatic structure of messianic prophecies 
(so obvious, for instance, in Ps. 2 and Is. 53), by which 
the speakers or their stations are changed during the 
progress of the discourse. And it is an unwarrantable 
restriction to confine the era indicated by the words 
εἰξερχόμενος, x.v.A. to the point of Christ’s incarnation. 
It may as well mean His introduction to his public 
ministry, and it may indicate any part of that minis- 
try; some point in it, for instance, when many snares 
and sufferings had already been surmounted, and yet 
the final struggles remained to be endured. Again, it 
is urged, a sinless being could not use the words of Ps. 
40: 12, “Mine iniquities have taken hold upon me.” 
But it is well known that 5) may mean ‘the punish- 
ments of iniquities,’ ‘calamities,’ ‘sufferings ;’ scilicet, 
in this case, the vicarious sufferings of Christ for the 
sins of others. Let the reader see, for instance, 2 Sam. 
16:12. And last, it is objected that the imprecations 
of vv. 14,15 of the Psalm are inconsistent with the 
spirit of forgiveness shown by the Saviour on the 
cross. But why, we ask, are they more incompatible 
with the Saviour’s forgiveness, than the woes de- 
nounced in Luke 11 against the Pharisees, scribes, and 
lawyers, or the doom, “ depart accursed,” which Christ 
the Judge will pronounce on all his enemies, or the 
“wrath of the Lamb” from which the unbelievers will 
seek to hide themselves under falling rocks and moun- 
tains? The holy denunciations of Scripture are not 
vindictive; and there is no inconsistency between 
them, as uttered against incorrigible offenders, and the 


372 HEBREWS, CHAP. X. V. 5. 


tender mercy of Christ towards sinners who are invited 
to repent. . 

σῶμα δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι. These words, though not 
a literal translation of the Hebrew, are sufficiently ac- 
curate as a translation ad senswm, and do no violence 
to the scope or sense of the passage: on the contrary, 
the meaning they give harmonizes well with it. The 
exact sense of the Hebrew is, “ Mine ears hast thou 
dug out,” i. e. “opened ;” which can only mean, ‘Thou 
hast made me obedient.’ Let the reader compare the 
similar expressions in Isaiah 50:5, jJ8 "> mnp (the 
Lord God) “hath opened mine ear,” which is parallel 
to the succeeding words, "1°72 > 7238), “and I was 
not rebellious;” and Job 36: 10, 10725 ots Dan, “He 
openeth also their ear to discipline.” When these 
words are understood of the Messiah, the incarnation 
is even implied; and we might elicit the meaning, 
‘Thou hast given me the form and the spirit of a ser- 
vant. The Septuagint translation admits of the same 
sense. It is plain, however, from vv. 8, 9, that the 
Apostle lays no stress upon this clause; for when he 
proceeds there to apply the evidence which he pur- 
poses to derive from his quotation, he expressly omits 
these words, and reasons from the general scope of the 
passage. His argument would be valid though this 
clause were altogether omitted. He does not attempt 
to prove his point (which is, that the Aaronic offerings 
were inefficient, and Christ’s, a truly efficient one, is 
substituted for them), by citing the prediction of His 
incarnation. But he proves it by citing the prophetic 


HEBREWS, OHAP. xX. Vv. 5. 373 


language where the Messiah announces his coming and 
obedience, in accordance with the Scriptures, as a more 
acceptable thing to God than offerings, whole burnt- 
offerings, and sin-offermgs. Nor may it be inferred 
that the Apostle here intended to make the idea of 
the incarnation the prominent and essential one in his 
argument, from the fact that σώματος occurs in his 
summing up inv. 10. This may have originated in 
the fact of Christ’s having suffered in the body, and 
would naturally have occurred in this place, though 
the author had used a literal translation of the clause 
in question. Christ’s offermg was made in a body; 
and hence it is very natural, that wherever it is allu- 
ded to, this feature of it should be alluded to, though 
not necessary to the point in hand. As instances of 
this, see Rom. 7: 4 and 1 Pet. 2: 24, “ Wherefore, my 
brethren, ye also are become dead to the law through 
the body of Christ.” “Who his own self bare our sins 
in his own body on the tree.” And yet, we may ad- 
mit that the introduction of σώματος, in v. 10, origi- 
nated in the author’s having just before employed the 
peculiar rendering of the Septuagint, without in the 
least affecting the validity of the argument from the 
passage. It would not be necessary to alter a single 
word in the argument, though the disputed clause had 
been wholly omitted. And now, inasmuch as the 
Apostle quotes from that common version of the Old 
Test. which was currently used by his readers, and 
from which he and all the other New Test. writers 
commonly quoted, as well known and sufliciently accu- 


814 HEBREWS, OHAP. xX. vv. 6, 7. 


rate, and inasmuch as he does not particularly endorse 
this inaccurate translation by arguing specially from 
its words, or attaching any importance to them in his 
argument, it was not to be expected that he should 
turn aside to correct the translation. His readers 
knew perfectly well whence the translation came, and 
how much authority the Apostle regarded it as hay- 
ing; and he was justified in using it for what it was 
worth, inasmuch as it was correct enough for his pur- 
pose in its general scope. He does not, on the one 
hand, pause to make an unnecessary and irrelevant 
correction in it, nor on the other does he endorse any 
minor inaccuracy in the version quoted. 

V.6. καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας. This is the Septuagint 
rendering for "8071. The expression is of course ellip- 
tical, implying some such word as προσφόραε, ϑυσία, 
περὲ ἁμαρτίας. 

V.7. τότε, Heb. τὸ. This is properly a particle 
of time. But as introductory to something accompa- 
nying, and consequent upon something else, it may be 
translated ‘thereupon.’ : 

γέγραπταε περὶ ἐμοῦ. The Hebrew here is "29 ΞΘ, 
which is capable either of the rendering prescriptum 
est mihi, or of that given to it by the Septuagint and 
our author. A clear instance of the former meaning 
may be seen in 2 Kings 22:13. Either rendering, 
however, might be made to suit the Apostle’s argu- 
ment. The one adopted by him is most agreeable to 
the analogy of other New Testament passages, as John 
5:39, 46, “Search the Scriptures; for in them ye 


HEBREWS, CHAP. X. V. 9. 375 


think ye have eternal life; and they are they which 
testify of me.” “For had ye believed Moses, ye would 
have believed me, for he wrote of me.” 

In joining τοῦ ποιῆσωε with ἥκω, the author fol- 
lows neither the Septuagint nor the original ; but the 
scope of the passage remains substantially the same. 
As it is fully expressed, it is, “I come; (in the volume 
of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will I de- 
light, oh my God.” Arrest the quotation where the 
Apostle does, and ‘I come ... to do thy will’ expresses 
likewise a hearty acquiescence in that will. 

τὸ ϑέλημωώ cov. The special will of God here, is 
that by which He desires the salvation of His people 
through an adequate satisfaction to the divine law. 
Upon this condition alone can He will their salvation. 
Hence He rejects the offerigs of bulls and goats, and 
demands that of Christ, as alone sufficient to the exi- 
gencies of the case. Hence, in v. 10, God’s will is said 
to secure the redemption of His people by the offering 
of the body of Christ. 

V.9. τὸ πρῶτον... τὸ δεύτερον. The context 
evidently compels us to refer these two adjectives im- 
mediately to the sacrifices of the two dispensations, the 
old and the new. But by implication these dispensa- 
tions may be meant, as embracing their respective 
offerings.. The dispensation is for the offering. 'The 
offering is the git, or essence of it, for the presenting 
of which the dispensation is maintained. And there- 
fore, as was indicated under ν. 1, we would not here 
exclude the idea of the contrast of the two dispensa- 


376 HEBREWS, CHAP. xX. v. 10. 


tions, which runs through the whole passage. The 
employment of the neuter gender here, when neither 
δεαϑήκη NOY προςφορὼ is neuter, is to be explained in 
the same manner as its occurrence in 7: 7 and 8: 18 
above. In the former of these passages, the writer, 
speaking of Abraham and Melchisedek, says, τὸ ἔλατ- 
τον ὑπὸ τοῦ χρείττονος εὐλογεῖται. In the latter, 
speaking of the two διεκεϑήκαε, he says: τὸ δὲ πα- 
Aawvusvoy καὶ ynoaoxor, ἐγγὺς ἀφανεσμοῦ. The 
neuter is employed because the general and abstract 
is asserted. | 

V. 10. ἐν ᾧ ϑελήματε. What this will is has 
been already stated, under ν. 7. The present verse 
explicitly confirms the correctness of the explanation 
there given; for it directly asserts that it is that will 
by which we have been redeemed by the once offering 
of the body of Christ. 

yytaousvoe ἐσμέν. This verb we have rendered 
‘redeemed. The reasons for doing so were stated in 
our remarks on 2: 11 above, and need not be now re- 
peated. In 13:12 below, an exactly similar use of 
the verb occurs: δεὸ καὶ Ἰησοῦς, iva ayiaon διὰ τοῦ 
ἰδίου αἵματος τὸν λαόν, x.r.2. Here, as in the passage 
last cited, the adjuncts determine the sense, and show 
the justice of the remarks which were made on ἅπαξ 
κεκαϑαρμένους a ν. ὃ. The work described by 
ἡγιασμένοε ἐσμέν, is that work which is wrought ‘ by 
the offering of the body of Christ. It includes, then, 
the result of the atonement, that is, deliverance from 
guilt and condemnation. But at the same time, the 





HEBREWS, CHAP. x. v. 11. 377 


very employment of a verb which so necessarily carries 
the sense of sanctification, shows that it includes also 
deliverance from the power of sin. The use which the 
popular expositor should make of this phrase, wherever 
it occurs in our Epistle, is to show his charge how inti- 
mately, yea inseparably, justification and sanctification 
go together; and thus how far the grace of God is 
from encouraging licentiousness. 


11 Kai πᾶς μὲν ἱερεὺς ἕστηκε xa ἡμέραν Ascrovo- 
γῶν, καὶ τὰς αὐτὰς πολλάκες προςφέρων ϑυσίας, 
αἵτενες οὐδέποτε δυνανταε περεελεῖν ἁμαρτίας " 

12 αὐτὸς δὲ μέαν ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτεῶν προςενέγκας ϑυσίαν 

13 εἰς τὸ δεηνεκές, ἐχάϑεσεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ ϑεοῦ, τὸ 
λοιπὸν ἐχδεχόμενος, ἕως τεϑῶσεν οἱ ἐχϑροὶ αὐτοῦ 

14 ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ. Mig γὰρ προςφορᾷ 
τετελείωχεν εἰς τό διηνεκὲς τοὺς ἁγεαζομένους. 

15 Μαρτυρεῖ δὲ ἡμῖν καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγεον" μετὰ 

16 γὰρ τὸ [προ]εερηκέναε “αὕτη ἡ διαϑήκη, ἣν δέεα- 
ϑηήσομαε πρὸς αὐτοὺς μετὰ TES ἡμέρας ἐχείνας ἢ 
λέγεε κύριος" “διδοὺς νόμους μον ἐπὲ καρδίας 
αὐτῶν, καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν διανοιῶν αὐτῶν ἐπιγράψω 

17 αὐτούς, καὶ τῶν ὡμαρτεῶν «αὐτῶν καὶ τῶν ὠνο- 

18 μμῶν αὐτῶν οὐ μὴ μνησϑῶ ἔτι." Ὅπου δὲ ἄφεσις 
τούτων, οὐκέτε προςφορὰ TEL ἁμαρτίας. 


V.11. Καὶ πᾶς μὲν ἑερεὺς ἕστηκε, κ.τ.5.:. Here ἃ 
new argument is introduced, showing the ‘weakness 
and unprofitableness’ of the old offerings, and the effi- 


378 HEBREWS, OHAP. Χ. v. 14. 


ciency of the new. The former are never able to take 
away sins (οὐδέποτε δύνωνται), however often re- 
peated, or however multiplied. One presentation of 
Christ’s offering was all sufficient ; as is shown by the 
fact that after it was once made, He sat down forever 
at the right hand of God, having no more sufferings to 
bear, or sacrificial work to perform, but awaiting, in a 
glorified state, the completion of the triumphs which 
were to reward his priestly functions. The contrast, 
showing the weakness of the Jewish and the efficiency 
of the Christian sacrifice, seems to lie mainly in the 
fact, that the priests in the former case stood minister- 
ing every day, by the perpetual repetition of their 
offices confessing that they had not accomplished the 
atoning result ; but Christ, having made his one offer- 
ing, was done; thus showing the perfection of its re- 
sult. The Apostle’s argument here is thus from the 
results, and is not a repetition of his reasoning in 9: 
25, 26. Yet the proof here is but an amplification 
and completion of that which is suggested there. 
The reasoning is then confirmed in the following 
verses. j 

V.14. τετελείωχεν. The force of this verb has 
been so fully illustrated under 2:10 and 10: 1, that 
no further remark is needed. This verse, and its logical 
connexion (by veg), fully substantiate the view which 
we have just given of the Apostle’s argument, as one 
from the results of the two offerings. The conjunction 
may be regarded as referring specially to ἐχώϑεσεν 
above; and as introducing the reason why, after the 


HEBREWS, CHAP. X. vv. 15, 18. 879 


one offering, Christ passed at once into a state of glori- 
fied rest. But it refers also generally to the main scope 
of the passage, which is to assert the superior effi- 
ciency of Christ’s sacrifice in its result. We of course 
give to ἁγεαζομένους the same meaning, ‘the redeem- 
ed,’ which we have so often asserted for it. This verse 
contains the materials of an entire refutation of all 
those doctrines of purgatory, justification by works, 
and sacramental merit and grace, with which papists 
and prelatists have disgraced Christ’s plan of redemp- 
tion. Their application is too obvious to need further 
ulustration for the learned reader. 

V. 15. Μαρτυρεῖ... τὸ πνεῦμα. This quota- 
tion (from Jer. 31:33) has already been seen in 8: 8 
above. ‘There it was used to prove the superiority of 
the new dispensation ; but here, from the same effects, 
to show the superiority of Christ’s sacrifice. And thus 
it appears that all the excellency of the new dispen 
sation depends upon the offering of Christ. It is to 
be noted that these words are said to be the witness- 
ing of the Holy Spirit; but immediately after, in v. 
16, it is ‘the Lord, χύρεος (in Jer. 81: 33, I>) who 
utters them. The Holy Spirit is therefore Lord and 
Jehovah. 

V. 18. οὐκέτε προςφορώ, ‘There is no more an 
offering to be made for sin, this offering of Christ hav- 
Ing accomplished the needed work. What is that 
work? The quotation from Jeremiah tells us that it 
is the writing of God’s law upon the heart, and the re- 
mission of the sins of His people. And thus we see 


380 HEBREWS, CHAP. x. v. 18. 


again the fundamental relationship of the death of 
Christ to the dispensation which secures these bless- 
ings. Thus also we are justified in haying said that 
these two results compose the καϑαρεσμός, the ἁγεο- 
σύνη, Which are so often stated in this Epistle as the 
consequence of Christ’s offering. 


CHAPTER Χ. 19---89. 


ANALYSIS. 


Havrine finished the argument, the author pro- 
ceeds to exhortation ; the scope and aim of which is a 
faithful, persevering, and patient adherence to the pro- 
fession and practice of the gospel: to enforce which 
he suggests a variety of considerations. These are, 
1st, the nature and excellency of the offering and the 
priest, securing freedom of access to God, vv. 19-22 ; 
2d, the faithfulness of Him that hath promised the 
gospel blessings, v. 23; 3d, the near approach of the 
day of trial, vv. 24, 25; 4th, the awful condition and 
prospects of those who reject Christ, vv. 26, 27; 5th, 
the divine vengeance on those who contemn Him and 
His blood, and insult the Spirit of Grace, vv. 28-31 ; 
6th, their former patience under afflictions and trials 
for the sake of the gospel, vv. 32-34; 7th, the great 
reward of persevering to the end, vv. 35, 36; which 
reward, finally, Christ would speedily come to adjudge 
to the faithful, while he visited his displeasure on apos- 
tates, vv. 87, 38. And in this connexion, and for the 
same end, the Apostle expresses again his goodly per- 
suasion concerning them, v. 39. 


382 HEBREWS, CHAP. X. V. 19. 


COMMENTARY. 


19 Ἔχοντες οὖν, ἀδελφοί, παῤῥησίαν εἰς τὴν sigodov 

20 τῶν ἀγίων ἕν τῷ αἵματε Ἰησοῦ, ἣν ἐνεκαένεσεν 
ἡμῖν ὁδὸν πρόςφατον καὶ ζῶσαν, διὰ τοῦ κατα- 

21 πετάσματος, (τοῦτ᾽ ἔστε, τῆς σαρκὸς αὑτοῦ,) καὶ 

22 ἑερέα μέγαν ἐπὶ τὸν οἶχον τοῦ ϑεοῦ" προςερχώ- 
sta μετὰ ἀληϑενῆς καρδίας ἕν πληροφορίᾳ 
πίστεως, ἐῤρῥαντεσμένοι τὰς καρδίας ἀπὸ συνεεδή- 

23 σεως πονηρᾶς, καὶ λελουμένοε τὸ σῶμα ὕδατε 
καϑαρῷ, κατέχωμεν τὴν ὁμολογίαν τῆς ἐλπέδος 
ἀκλενῆ (πιστὸς γὰρ ὃ ἐπαγγειλάμενος *) 


V.19. παῤῥησίαν. ‘This word has been already 
remarked as it occurs in 3: 6 and 4: 16 above: it will 
also be met again in v. 35 below. As was remarked, 
its literal meaning (from as, ρησες) would be, ‘ entire 
freedom of utterance.’ Hence the meaning of ‘bold- 
ness,’ ‘confidence, which it has in all the four places 
cited. It is a confidence founded on the complete effi- 
cacy of the offering made for us by our mediator, who 
hath entered in ‘for us,’ coupled of course with the 
free and faithful gospel offer of the benefits of that 
sacrifice to all believers. The conjunction ovy intro- 
duces the statement that we have a right to such con- 
fidence, and may come with a true heart in the full 
assurance of faith, as an inference from what precedes. 
The illation may be conceived as drawn from y. 18, or 
from the whole scope of the previous passage as it is 


HEBREWS, CHAP. X. ‘Vi 90. 383 


summed up in v. 14, “By one offermg He hath per- 
fected forever the redeemed.” 

τῶν aytov. ‘The commentators usually interpret 
these words as meaning the heavenly sanctuary, in ac- 
cordance with their meaning in 9:12, 24. But when 
do believers enter into that sanctuary? After death 
only. Yet we can scarcely believe that the Apostle 
in this place only intends to exhort us to exercise this 
believing confidence in view of the one occasion of 
our passage into the spiritual world after death. He 
doubtless has in view our daily approaches to the 
throne of grace, as is evident from the exhortation 
TOOSEO YE usta, κ.τ.λ. in v. 22. We must then under- 
stand this <isodov τῶν ayiwy, as a figurative approach, 
made by faith only, to the presence of God in heaven. 
Or, more probably, as the universe is God’s temple, 
and He is every where present, we may understand 
simply our daily approach into His presence in the 
acts of worship. 

V. 20. ἥν. This pronoun very clearly refers to 
eigodor, and is in apposition with ὁδὸν agosparoy χαὶ 
ζῶσαν: ‘This access or entrance Christ hath ratified 
for us, viz. a new and living way,’ 

évexaiviosy. This verb has been already explained, 
“under 9: 18 above, as receiving from the Septuagint 
usage the sense of ‘consecrate,’ ‘ratify, or ‘sanction.’ 
Either of these is appropriate here. Chrysostom has 
well given the sense by the words, ἣν κατεσκεύασε καὶ 
ἧς ἤρξατο. 

πρόςφατον. This word (from προ- spaw, σφαζω) 


384 HEBREWS, OHAP. X. V. 20. 


would mean ‘recently killed’ ‘There is therefore a 
transference of idea from the sacrifice newly slain, to 
the way of access opened up by that sacrifice. Thus 
we derive the meaning ‘newly opened,’ ‘fresh, ‘new.’ 

ζῶσαν. ‘The use of this participle here may be 
compared with that in 4: 12, ζῶν γὰρ ὃ λόγος. Some 
render it here, ‘a life-giving way;’ others, an ‘endu- 
ring, or perpetual way.’ We prefer to explain it as 
meaning ‘a way that leads to life.’ Spiritual life is of 
course intended. While, in other Scriptures, Christ is 
said to be himself the way, such is not the exact figure 
here; for He is said to ratify or consecrate the way. 
And in this aspect, we cannot say that the way which 
He thus opens up is life-giving, for it is He himself 
who is life-giving. This way leads us to the life which 
He gives us through it; and in this sense it is ‘a living 
way, ‘the way of life.’ 

καταπετάσματος, ... τῆς σαρκὸς αὑτοῦ. The au- 
thor here compares Christ slain upon the cross to the 
vail in the temple. The vail was the door of entrance 
into the earthly holy of holies ; Christ’s body crucified 
for sin, is the door into the heavenly. Thus in John 
10: 7, 9, He says, Ἐγω sive ἡ ϑύρα. In 14: 6, Ἐγώ 
siz ἡ ὁδός. The author is only carrying out the figure 
with which he had set out, and the commentators make 
needless difficulty concerning the seeming irregularity 
and anomaly of the view. In prosecuting the figure 
which he had adopted, the author is led to assign to 
Christ’s flesh or body a position or point of view vary- 
ing from that assigned to it elsewhere, or even in other 


HEBREWS, CHAP. X. Vv. 21, 22. 385 


parts of the same passage. In this there is nothing 
which need be represented as unintelligible, or as con- 
trary to usage. 

V.21. ἑερέα μέγαν. By these words, most inter- 
preters, among whom are the authors of our English 
version, seem to understand simply “ chief-priest,” that 
is, ‘high-priest, ὠρχεερέα. It is indisputable that the 
Septuagint use 6 ἑερεὺς ὃ μέγας for the Hebrew 772A 
235. But ἑερεύς, like 75, is generic, and is used in 
the Septuagint and elsewhere, without any attributive, 
for the high-priest. In Acts 5: 24 we find it even used 
in contradistinction to ὠρχεερεῖς, so that the simple 
ἑερεὺς signifies the high-priest, and ὠρχεερεῖς only the 
chief-priests or heads of courses. In this Epistle ἑερεὺς 
is frequently used without attributive for Christ and 
Melchisedek, and Jewish high-priests. Let the reader 
refer especially to 5:6 above, as compared with 5: 
1, 5, where, in the words of Ps. 110: 4, it is said of 
Christ, previously called ἀρχεέρεύς, ov ἑερεὺς εἰς τὸν 
αἰῶνα, x.r.4.; ‘7:8, where Melchisedek is called simply 
ἑερεὺς εἰς τὸ δεήνεκες ; and 8: 4, where Christ is de- 
nominated by the same word: while*‘in 6: 20, and 8: 
1, 8, the same persons are called ἀρχεερεῖς. In 4: 14 
we find the phrase ὠρχεερέω μέγαν applied to Christ. 
It seems therefore much more reasonable to under- 
stand the adjective μέγαν here, as not merely an epi- 
thet to distinguish Him as High-Priest, but as more 
emphatic: He is ‘a great High-Priest, as in 4: 14, 
great in comparison of human high-priests. 

V. 22. ἐῤῥαντεσμένοι . .. λελουμένοι. These are 

25 


386 HEBREWS, CHAP. X. V. 23. 


two figurative expressions borrowed from the Levitical 
dispensation, to represent spiritual truths under the 
new. ‘The first represents mainly atonement by the 
sprinkling of the blood of Jesus. As the sacrificial 
blood, signifying remission of guilt, was sprinkled on 
the person of the offerer, so here, the symbol repre- 
sents the application of the true atonement, relieving 
the believer's heart of the consciousness of guilt. The 
second expression, borrowed from the purifications of 
the priests at the lavers of the temple-court, represents 
sanctification by the Holy Spirit. Nothing is taught 
here, as to the mode of Christian baptism, which is re- 
motely, if at all, alluded to. 

V. 23. ὁμολογίαν. ‘This word has been already 
sufficiently explained under 3:1, 4:14 above, as 
meaning ‘ confession,’ ‘ profession.’ 

πιστὸς yao ὃ ἐπαγγεελώμενος. Here we havea 
reason for our perseverance in a sincere and steady pro- 
fession of Christianity: ‘He who hath made the prom- 
ises on which we hope, is faithful’ The obvious scope 
of the context shows that πεστὸς here signifies God’s 
fidelity to his engagements. In 1 Thess. 5: 24 we read, 
ΤΠ στὸς ὁ καλῶν vas, ὃς καὶ ποιήσει. In those words 
the meaning of πεστὸς is defined by what follows. It 
signifies that God is one who will do what he engages. 





~ ’ Ud > , 
24 καὶ κατανοῶμεν ἀλλήλους εἰς παροξυσμὸν ἀγάπης 
25 καὶ καλῶν ἔργων, μὴ ἐγκαταλείποντες τὴν ἐπεσυν- 
c ~ » U 2 Ἁ 
αγωγὴν ἑαυτῶν, καϑὼς ἔϑος τεσίν, ἀλλὰ maga- 
καλοῦντες" καὶ τοσούτῳ μᾶλλον, ὅσῳ βλέπετε 


HEBREWS, ΒΑΡ. xX. v. 95. 387 


26 ἐγγέζουσαν τὴν ἡμέραν. “Exovolos γὰρ ἁμαρτα- 
γόντων ἡμῶν μετὰ τὸ λαβεῖν τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τῆς 
ἀληϑείας, οὐκέτε MEQL ἁμαρτεῶν ἀπολείπεταε ϑυ- 

27 σία" φοβερὰ δὲ τις ἐχδοχὴ κρίσεως καὶ πυρὸς 
ζῆλος ἐσϑέεεν μέλλοντος τοὺς ὑπεναντίους. 


V. 256. τὴν ἐπεισυναγωγήν. This word occurs in 
the New Test. only here, and in 2 Thess. 2: 1, where 
it signifies our gathering together unto Christ at his 
coming. In the apocryphal books of the Old Test. it 
is employed of the assemblies or congregations of the 
Israelites. In this place it must be understood not of 
the ‘Christian body,’ or Church, as though the Apostle 
here exhorted his readers not to apostatize from the 
Church; but of the act of assembling together, namely, 
for social worship. To this sense agree the expres- 
sions, which immediately follow, χαϑὼς ἔϑος τισίν, 
and παρακαλοῦντες. For this apostacy from the 
Church is an act which could not be habitual, as the 
neglect of meeting the brethren in worship might be. 
And the exhortation here enjoined obviously implies 
such meetings. 

βλέπετε ἐγγέζουσαν τὴν ἡμέραν. ‘This day is, most 
probably, primarily that of Christ’s coming for the de- 
struction of the Jewish commonwealth, which, He had 
himself foretold, should take place in that generation. 
This is distinctly stated in Matt. 24: 34 and Luke 21: 
32. All who were overtaken by this destruction 
would thereby be hurried to the judgment; and this 
seems to be referred to in the following verses. ‘The 
apostles knew not when the day of jimal judgment 


388 HEBREWS, OHAP. X.V. 25. 


would come. In Matt. 24:36 and Mark 18: 32, they 
were told by our Saviour, “ But of that day and hour 
knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my 
Father only.” But they nowhere teach that this day 
of final accounts was just at hand: the apostle Paul, 
in 2 Thess, 2:2 and seqq. expressly repels this asser- 
tion, warning his readers not to be “shaken in mind, 
or troubled, neither by spirit nor by word, nor by 
letter as from him, as that the day of Christ was at 
hand,” and assurmg them, “that day shall not come, 
except there come a falling away first, and that man 
of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.” The apostles 
do, however, not unfrequently refer to the coming of 
our Saviour for the destruction of Jerusalem, or to 
take us hence to our account by death. And this 
coming, it should be noted, would in effect be the 
same, to all concerned, as the hurrying forward of the 
day of final judgment. Thus we find our Saviour, in 
Matt. 24: 36-51 and Mark 13 : 32-37, when foretelling 
the great catastrophe in language which included both 
the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world, 
representing them as events in the uncertainty of 
which his hearers had a personal concern: “ Watch, 
therefore,” He says, “for ye know not what hour your 
Lord doth come.” “Therefore be ye also ready ; for 
in such an hour as ye think not, the Son of Man com- 
eth.” “Take ye heed; watch and pray, for ye know 
not when the time is.” None of those hearers were 
destined to see the end of the world: few of them the 
overthrow of Jewry which was then nearly forty years 


HEBREWS, CHAP. X. v. 26. 389 


distant. There must have been therefore a “coming 
of the Son of Man,” an end, personal to each of them; 
and this was their death. In v. 37 below it is said, 
“For yet a little while, and He that shall come will 
come, and will not tarry.” In 1 Thess. 5:2-4 we 
read that warning, which was so misinterpreted by the 
Thessalonians into a prediction of the approaching end 
of the world, as to demand the Apostle’s correction in 
his second Epistle: “For yourselves know perfectly 
that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the 
night.... But ye, brethren, are not in darkness that 
that day should overtake you as a thief.” That ‘day 
of the Lord’ was therefore, to the Thessalonian Chris- 
tians, the day of their death. Many other similar pas- 
sages might be cited, as 1 Pet. 4:7, 2 Pet. 3:10. It 
has been a favourite assertion with the enemies of in- 
spiration, that the apostles were labouring under a 
mistake in this thing, and have in these places de- 
clared their expectation of an immediate end of the 
world, which has now been contradicted by nearly 
eighteen centuries. The comparison of passages which 
we have made shows that they made no such predic- 
tions; but that, while they spoke of the world as hav- 
ing now passed into its last dispensation, and, in that 
sense, as approaching its end, they profess an entire 
ignorance of the date of that end, but urge upon every 
man the nearness and uncertainty of that other event, 
his own death, which would carry, to his soul, all the 
results of the final consummation. 


V. 26. Ἑκουσίως γὰρ ἁμαρτανόντων, ‘If we de- 


390 HEBREWS, CHAP. X. Vv. 27. 


liberately evr, or sin, in departing from the truth as it 
pertains to Christ and His sacrifice’ We have pre- 
sented two senses of ὠκαρτάνω, either of which 
amounts to nearly the same: the last is the stronger 
and more common. An instance occurs in Josephus, 
where the verb means to err in word: οὐδ ὧν auag- 
τοῖμε εἴπων. Many interpreters understand it as sig- 
nifying an error in faith, in the following places, 1 Cor. 
15:34, and Titus 3:11, Ἐκνήψατε δικαίως, καὶ μὴ 
ἀμαρτάνετε " ἀγνωσίαν γὰρ ϑεοῦ τενὲς ἔχουσεν. Ἐξέ- 
στραπταε ὁ τοιοῦτος (Algsrix0s ἄνϑρωπος) καὶ ἁὡμαρ- 
rave. But most commonly in the New Test. it signi- 
fies to err in deed, ‘to sin, which is its predominant 
sense. The context clearly shows that the sin here 
indicated is that of apostacy from Christianity. It is 
asin against that ἐπέγνωσεν τῆς dd Oeita which the 
apostate has received in his understanding and pro- 
fessed to embrace with his heart. 

οὐκέτε... ϑυσία. The types having been done 
away, and the true and only availing sacrifice, that of 
Christ, rejected, there is none left to help the apostate 
sinner. The warning of 6: 4-6 may be compared with 
this. There, such a deserter of Christianity is said to 
crucify to himself the Son of God afresh, and put him 
to an open shame. 

V. 2%. πυρὸς ζῆλος. The nominative here de- 
pends on ἀπολεέπεταιε, which is to be supplied from 
y. 26. The phrase means literally, “an indignation 
of fire,” i.e. ‘a fiery indignation” The genitive here 
is qualificative, like an adjective. 


HEBREWS, CHAP. Χ. V. 28. 391 


28 ᾿ϑετήσας τὶς νόμον Μωῦσέως, χωρὶς οἰκτιρμῶν 

29 ἐπὶ δυσὶν ἢ τρεσὲ μάρτυσεν ἀποϑνήσκεε᾽ πόσῳ, 
δοκεῖτε, χείρονος ἀξεωϑήσετωε τεμωρίας ὁ τὸν υἱὸν 
τοῦ ϑεοῦ καταπατήσας, καὶ τὸ αἷμα τῆς διαϑήκης 
κοινὸν ἡγησάμενος, ἐν ᾧ ἡγεάσϑη, καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα 

80 τῆς χάρετος ἐνυβρίσας  Οἰδαμεν γὰρ τὸν εἰπόν- 
τα “Ἐμοὶ ἐχδίκησες, ἐγὼ ἀνταποδώσω [λέλεε 
κύρεος] xai nahi: “ Κύριος χρενεῖ τὸν λαὸν 

81 αὑτοῦ ΦΦοβερὸν τὸ ἐμπεσεῖν εἰς χεῖρας ϑεοῦ 
ζῶντος ! 


V.28. ᾿“ϑετήσας. This participle means prima- 
rily ‘to put away,’ ‘cast off? as in 1 Tim. 5:12, τὴν 
πρώτην πίέστεν ndirnoav. Hence the meaning ‘to 
make void, ‘annul,’ which we find in Mark 7: 9, Ke- 
λῶς ἀϑετεῖτε τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ ϑεοῦ. In Luke 10: 16, 
and John 12: 48, we find a third meaning, to ‘ reject,’ 
or ‘despise, ὁ ἀϑετῶν ὑμᾶς ἐμὲ ἀϑετεῖ. Ὁ ἀϑετῶν 
ἐμὲ... ἔχεε τὸν κρίνοντα αὐτόν. The second sense is 
evidently the one to be adopted here: ‘ He that made 
void Moses’ law’ (by neglecting obedience to it). 

νόμον Mwicéas. Bloomfield understands by this 
‘the ceremonial law.’ It seems to us preferable to re- 
gard it either as referring to the whole law of Moses, 
requiring in general the service and fear of the true 
God as opposed to all false religion and wickedness, 
the penalty of the contumacious and treasonable viola- 
tion of which was death. (Thus, in Deut. 13: 6-10, 
we read that the punishment of apostacy from the 
Mosaic institutions into idolatry was death; and in 
Deut. 17:12, that the presumptuous disobedience of 


392 HEBREWS, CHAP. xX. V. 29. 


the priest and judge was punished with the same pen- 
alty.) Or else we might, with equal propriety, regard 
the law of Moses here, as meaning any specific statute 
whose penalty was death; as that against murder, 
adultery, or manstealing. He that made void one of 
these laws dies (ἀποϑνήσκεε) by the testimony of two 
or three witnesses. The author uses the present tense, 
because his readers were familiar with Mosaic institu- 
tions as still existing. 

V. 29. xzocvoy. The Jewish understanding of this 
word will be familiar to every intelligent reader of the 
Scriptures. We would render it here, ‘common, 1. 6. as 
having no efficacy or consecration to the work of atone- 
ment more than common blood, or more than the blood 
of any dymg human being; the touch of which by the 
Levitical law rather suggested guilt and moral contam- 
ination, than atonement and sanctification, by render- 
ing him who touched it ceremonially unclean. There 
is here an implied reference to the views of the apos- 
tate returning to Judaism; for he professes himself to 
prefer the blood of beasts as prescribed by the law, 
and therefore clean, while he rejects that of Christ as 
the defiling blood of a dying sinner, unclean and abom- 
inable. The phrase τὸ ciuc τῆς δεαϑήκης m this con- 
nexion bears an obvious meaning. It is the blood of 
Christ, sealing the new covenant. The apostate is also 
represented, figuratively, as trampling on the Son of 
God (καταπατήσας), by which ‘the dishonour, rejec- 
tion, and contumely, with which the Jewish rulers 
treated him at his death, are aptly signified. He who 


HEBREWS, CHAP. xX. Vv. 29. 393 


deliberately (éovotae) rejects Christ and Christianity, 
concurs in that contumelious rejection and condemna- 
tion, endorses its justice, and becomes partaker in it; 
for he thereby professes that Christ was an impostor. 
The explicitness of His claims to messiahship leaves no 
middle ground. 

ἐν ᾧ ἡγεώσϑη. ‘Three explanations of these words 
have been offered by different interpreters. Some re- 
fer the subject of ἡγεάσϑη to vioyv τοῦ ϑεοῦ, and un- 
derstand the expression of Him; supposing in it an 
allusion to the consecration of the Levitical priests by 
the blood of victims. The words would then imply 
that the atoning blood which the sinner rejects in his 
unbelief was also applied to Christ, to consecrate or set 
Him apart to His priestly office. This is not natural ; 
for not only is there an entire absence of analogous 
language concerning Christ in the Scriptures, but there 
is language which bears against it. Of merely human 
priests, Hebr. 5:2, 3 says that they themselves also 
“are compassed with infirmity. And by reason here- 
of, they ought, as for the people, so also for themselves, 
to offer for sins.” But (Hebr. 7: 26-28) our High- 
Priest is “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sin- 
ners, and made higher than the heavens ; who needeth 
not daily, as those high-priests, to offer up sacrifice first 
for his own sins, and then for the people’s; for this” 
(obviously ‘this latter’) “He did once when He 
offered up himself. For the law maketh men high- 
priests which have infirmity ; but the word of the 
oath which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is 


394 HEBREWS, CHAP. X. V. 29. 


consecrated forever more.” To say that Christ, the sin- 
less, perfect, and holy from eternity, was consecrated 
to the priestly office by sacrificial blood, and that His 
own, at the same offering when He shed it for the sins 
of others, is certainly anomalous, if not positively erro- 
neous, according to all the analogy of Scripture truth. 

Others refer the subject of the verb to the apos- 
tate, the subject of the sentence; and render ἡγεώσέδη, 
‘was consecrated’ or ‘set apart to God’ by public pro- 
fession. They thus understand the language as a figu- 
rative allusion to the sprinkling of the people referred 
to in 9:19 above, at the setting up of the first dispen- 
sation. That sprinkling is recorded in Exodus 24: 8; 
and the interpretation just given receives some plausi- 
bility from the words which Moses there uses, “ Be- 
hold the blood of the covenant,” &e. It may be sup- 
posed that the words τὸ aiuc τῆς διαϑήκης, in ν. 29, 
contain an allusion to this. But here again the objec- 
tion arises, that the Scriptures nowhere represent men 
as being brought into visible church membership by 
the sprinkling of Christ’s blood in any sense. Baptism 
is the rite by which, under the new testament, men 
are brought into this relationship. 

The third interpretation, which seems to us clearly 
the most natural, refers the nominative to the supposed 
apostate person, and gives to ἡγεώσύίλη its regular mean- 
ing, ‘wherewith he’ (the rejecter in question) ‘was 
redeemed.’ Such is plainly the signification of the 
verb in 10:10 and 13:12; and it is always a strong 
reason for a given rendering, that the word bears that 


HEBREWS, CHAP. X. Vv. 29. 395 


sense in the same book and in similar contexts. The 
obvious objection which will present itself to this view 
is, that it implies that Christ died for, and that his 
blood was actually applied in its redeeming virtue to, 
some, who still were finally lost. But popularly un- 
derstood, this language means no more than ‘to despise 
the blood shed for our redemption,’ and by no means 
teaches that the sins of the person in question were 
ever actually forgiven in view of the atonement. So, 
Christ is said to de for all; and the most rigid Calvin- 
ists continually use parallel language in their writings 
and speaking. If we adopt the sense we have here 
recommended, the words under discussion will present 
no more difficulty than those of Rom. 14: 15, “ Destroy 
not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.” The 
true key to all the supposed Arminian difficulties of 
this class of passages is that which has been already 
given in this Commentary (pp. 215, 216), in the re- 
marks on 6: 4—6. 

Among those truths and motives which, applied 
by the Holy Spirit, are the efficient means of retain- 
ing the believer securely in his gracious state, are the 
dangers and evils of apostacy. And therefore it is 
consistent that God should address to believers these 
warnings of the danger and misery of falling away; 
and in so warning them, He does not imply that He 
intends to permit them to realize those dangers, and 
experience that ruin. The warning, the prospect and 
fear of the danger, are the means He will use to ensure 
that they shall not fall. It must be borne in mind 


396 HEBREWS, CHAP. X. V. +29. 


that the apostacy of one already justified and sancti- 
fied, is not impossible or improbable in the nature of 
things, so far as the believer's own free-agency is con- 
cerned. Adam, when more perfect than any of us, 
found it not unnatural to fall. The certainty that 
none of the redeemed will truly and finally perish is 
in the purpose of God’s grace towards them, and the 
communications of strength certainly resulting from 
that purpose. Hence, as it was not inconsistent for 
Paul to warn the Romans against acts which might 
seduce their weak brethren into destructive sin, as 
though a true, though weak believer could be de- 
stroyed; it is not inconsistent for the author here, 
speaking generally and popularly, to describe to a be- 
liever, what would be the peculiar malignity of the sin 
of apostatizing from the Saviour who had redeemed 
him with His blood, as though such a believer could 
so apostatize. 

ἐνυβρίσας. This word occurs here only in the 
New Test.; but there is no uncertainty in assigning it 
the meaning of ‘insult. There is no good reason for 
understanding τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς χάρετος, with some com- 
mentators, as simply grace, or gospel blessings. ‘This is 
certainly an unnatural and unwarrantable interpreta- 
tion. It means ‘the Spirit of grace,’ or the Holy 
Spirit who is gracious. He is so called as being, like 
the Father and the Son, most generously gratuitous in 
what he does for sinners, and more especially, as being 
the agent for communicating grace. The sin of desert- 
ing the service of Christ insults that Divine Being; 


HEBREWS;SOHAPS (x. σιν 80:81. 397 


because it contemptuously disregards His teachings 
prompting us to the contrary. 

V. 80. Οἰδαμεν γάρ. The writer now introduces, 
in two quotations, a ground or reason for his assertion 
that the apostate from Christianity will be adjudged 
worthy of a far sorer punishment. 

Ἐμοὶ ἐχδίκησες, κιτι. This citation is from Deut. 
32:85, ὈΡ ΡΟ >. The passage is thus quoted also 
in Rom. 12:19; im neither case in the very words of 
the Septuagint. 

Κύριος κρινεῖ τὸν λαὸν αὑτοῦ. ‘This quotation 
may be taken either from Deut. 32 : 36, or Ps. 188 : 14. 
The verb χρενεῖ must here bear the sense of the ori- 
ginal 1515, which means in general ‘to judge, then ‘to 
maintain one’s righteous cause,’ and thence ‘to avenge.’ 
Thus, in both these passages, God is declared to be the 
righteous judge, and the avenger of His people, who 
are injured and dishonoured by wicked deserters and 
opposers. The appositeness of the quotation is not 
obscure. If retributive justice is one of God’s essential 
attributes, yea, fis alone, except where He delegates 
it, and He is pledged to repay their full deserts to all 
evil deeds, and to vindicate all the wrongs of his peo- 
ple, there can be no escape for the backsliders above 
described. Ifthe elements of guilt which the Apostle 
imputes are in them, the punishment will be upon 
them, in due time. 

V. 31. φοβερὸν τὸ ἐμπεσεῖν εἰς χεῖρας, x.t.h. 
The meaning of these words may be aptly illustrated 
by the language of David, when the alternative was 


898 HEBREWS, CHAP. X. v. 82. 


offered to him between war, famine, or pestilence, as 
his punishment, 2 Sam. 24:14, “Let us fall now into 
the hand of the Lorn,” 47-372 82 42p>. At all times, 
“our breath is in his hand,” Dan. 5:23. But the 
language here means falling into God’s hands for retri- 
bution. This is a fearful thing, because He is God, 
almighty, infinite, &c., and because He is ever living: 
His wrath never ceases. 


32 ᾿ἀναμεμνήσκεσϑε δὲ τὰς πρότερον ἡμέρας, ἐν αἷς 
φωτισϑέντες πολλὴν ἄϑλησεν ὑπεμείνατε παϑη- 

33 μάτων" τοῦτο μέν, ὀνειδισμοῖς τε καὶ ϑλέψεσε 
τϑεατριζόμενοε᾽ τοῦτο δέ, κοινωνοὶ τῶν οὕτως 

84 ἀναστρεφομένων γενηϑέντες. Καὶ γὰρ τοῖς δε- 
σμοῖς μοῦ συνεπαϑήσατε, καὶ τὴν ὡρπαγὴν τῶν 
ὑπαρχόντων ὑμῶν μετὰ χαρᾶς προςεδέξασϑε, 
γενώσκοντες ἔχεεν [ἐν] ἑαυτοῖς κρείττονα ὕπαρξεν 
ἐν οὐρανοῖς καὶ μένουσαν. 


V. 88. Τοῦτο μὲν... τοῦτο δέ, “ Partly while ye 
were made a gazing stock both by reproaches and afilic- 
tions, and partly while ye became companions of them 
that were so used.” This meaning of these phrases is 
asserted in Matthix’s Greek Gram. $288, obs. 2. 

ϑεατρεζόμενοι. The allusion here, as well as in the 
words πολλὴν ἄϑλησεν of ν. 82, is to the Roman and 
Grecian theatrical shows: ‘Ye were made a spectacle 
of’ A similar allusion occurs in 1 Cor. 4:9, “For I 
think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it 
were appointed to death; for we are made a spectacle 


HEBREWS,’ CHAP. X. v. 84. 399 


(ϑέατρον ἐγενήϑηκεν) unto the world, and to angels, 
and to men.” Itis supposed that the custom 1s here 
alluded to, of reserving those gladiators to the end of 
the show, who were appointed, because they were per- 
haps condemned malefactors, to fight to mutual exter- 
mination without reprieve. Thus, the barbarous pa- 
gans gave a piquancy and excitement to the close of 
entertainments, which might otherwise pall upon the 
appetite. Such a part of the show did the apostles 
compose, destined to minister to the pleasure of their 
persecutors by sufferings more merciless and deadly 
than private Christians. How the Hebrew Christians 
were made spectacles, is declared by the words ὀγεεδὲ- 
σμοῖς τὲ καὶ Phiweot. The reproaches and _ tribula- 
tions which they suffered for Christ, had made them 
conspicuous to a sinful world and to angels. 

κοινωνοί, ‘Partly while ye became sharers of the 
lot of those who were so exercised.” They became 
sharers by their sympathies and charitable ministra- 
tions to the sufferers. The word χοενωνέας, in 13:16 
below, has a similar meaning, as will appear from the 
context. A part of these Hebrew Christians suffered 
in person for Christianity, and at times. Another 
part sympathized with and relieved the sufferings of 
their brethren, and thus, in a sense, partook with 
them, though at that time personally exempt from 
persecutions. 

V. 84. τοῖς δεσμοῖς μοῦ. This is the reading in 
the Textus Receptus, and almost all the manuscripts of 
the Greek Test. τοῖς δεσμοῖς (ye sympathized with 


400 HEBREWS, CHAP. X. Vv. 35, 36. 


the captives) is found in some manuscripts, the Syriac, 
Coptic, Armenian, and Vulgate versions, and in some 
Fathers. Some editors of modern date, among whom 
is Hahn, have therefore inserted it. They have also 
urged as a reason for preferring this reading, that, ac- 
cording to correct Greek usage, the verb συμπάσζχω is 
only used with persons and never with things. But 
this is certainly incorrect. We have an obvious in- 
stance of the contrary in 4:15 above, συμπαΐϑῆσαε 
ταῖς aodsveiaes ἡμῶν. Bp. Jebb has also adduced 
a similar example from Isocrates.. The received read- 
ing is clearly to be preferred; and we learn that the 
persons to whom this Epistle was addressed had sym- 
pathized with its author while suffering bondage for 
Christ. Is it not most probable that this event was 
the long captivity of Paul at Cxsarea, which is related 
in Acts 24:27 ? 


35 Μὴ ἀποβάλητε οὖν τὴν magonoiay ὑμῶν, Ares ἔχεε 

36 μεσϑαποδοσίωαν μεγάλην. Ὑπομονῆς γὰρ ἔχετε 
χρείαν, iva τὸ ϑέλημα τοῦ ϑεοῦ ποιήσαντες κομέ- 

37 σησϑὲε τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν. “Ἔτε γὰρ μεκρὸν ὅσον 

38 ὅσον, ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἥξεε καὶ οὐ χρονεεῖ. Ὁ δὲ δέ- 
χαιος ἐκ πίστεως, ζήσετε" καὶ ἐὰν ὑποστείληταε, 

39 οὐκ εὐδοκεὶ ἡ ψυχὴ μουν ἐν «αὐτῷ. Ἡμεῖς δὲ οὐκ 
ἐσμὲν ὑποστολῆς, εἰς ἀπώλειαν" ἀλλὰ πίστεως, εἰς 
περιποίησεν WUY Ns. 


Vv. 35, 36. These words scarcely need any ex- 
planation farther than is given them in the Analysis, 
to which the reader is referred. 


HEBREWS, CHAP. X. Vv. 87: 401 


V. 37. μικρὸν ὅσον ὅσον. ‘This phrase is inten- 
sive, like the Hebrew 189 “89: “For yet a very little 
(time), He that cometh will come,” &c. For confirma- 
tion of this rendering, see Matthie’s Gr. Gram. $486. 
obs. 1, and Viger’s Greek Idioms, 8. v. c. III. 89. The 
latter cites Arr. Ind. s. 29, as using the same phrase: 
σπείρουσεν ὅσον ὅσον τῆς χώρας. 

ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἥξει, κιτ.2. The quotation is from 
Hab. 2:3, 4. The Hebrew is 2: ἼΠΙΝῚ 82 8a ΕΞ 
mon inpyaxa pz) ia iwesmodesk> moey; of which the 
following may be proposed as a correct translation : 
‘For it (the vision) shall surely come; it shall not 
tarry: lo; his soul is proud, it is not right within 
him; but the righteous by his faith shall live’ The 
Septuagint translate it, ὅτε ἐρχόμενος ἥξει, καὶ ov μὴ 
χρονεσή᾽ ἐὰν ὑποστείληταε οὐκ εὐδοκεῖ ἡ ψύχη μου 
ἐν aura’ ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως μου ζήσεται. The 
English rendering of this would be, ‘ For he will come 
and will not tarry. If he (any one) draw back, my 
soul taketh no pleasure in him; but the just by faith 
in me shall live’ It would seem that there must have 
been some variation in the reading which was before 
the Seventy, from that which we now possess. Their 
rendering evidently expresses the general sense of the 
passage. In the last verse our author inverts the order 
of the clauses, and couples them by καί. Otherwise, 
he follows in the main the translation of the Septua- 
gint, quoting the passage not as a prophecy of the 
matter in hand (in the view of Habakkuk, the ap- 
proaching doom of the oppressors of Israel), but as 

26 


402 HEBREWS, OHAP. X. Vv. 387. 


setting forth principles applicable to the argument of 
this part of the Epistle. But why the inversion of the 
clauses in the fourth verse? Bloomfield, and others 
who desire to give an Arminian sense to the passage, 
say that the Apostle inverts the clauses in order to 
manifest the relation which he would have δώκαεος 
bear as the subject of ὑποστείληταε: or at least, that 
in the sentence of the Apostle as inverted, 6 d/xazog is 
the proper subject. Even if this construction were 
admitted, the remarks which we have offered above on 
ν. 29 would apply and show that the Arminian infer- 
ence, that any justified person does ever ‘draw back’ 
finally and totally, does not necessarily follow. But it 
is a more natural account of the inversion, to suppose 
that the Apostle viewed the two clauses which he 
quotes as separated, and as containing two separate 
principles, both of which he wished to apply to his 
exhortation, and that thus, the order in which he men- 
tions them is unimportant and accidental. The con- 
junction καὶ is then to be regarded as the mere addi- 
tive word of transition, by which the second quotation 
is introduced after the first; and is equivalent to καὶ 
πάλεν, in 2:13 and 10:30 above. In both the places 
just cited, the clauses of the quotation are thus sepa- 
rated, although they are, in each case, taken from the 
same passage of the Old Test. In 11:2 below, our 
author cites the two incidents of Jacob’s blessing each 
of the sons of Joseph, and leaning upon the head of his 
staff to worship, but in an inverted order. The latter 
is first recorded in Gen. 47:31, and the former after- 


HEBREWS, OHAP. xX. v. 39. 403 


wards, in Gen. 48:14. Many instances occur, also, 
which justify us in regarding καί, as here used, in the 
sense of καὶ πάλεν, to introduce an additional and sep- 
arate fact or citation. Thus, in 1 Tim. 5:18, Βοῦν 
ἀλοῶντα ov φεμώσεις " καί" (an additional quotation 
from a different place) ὥξεος 6 ἐργάτης τοῦ μεσϑοῦ 
avrov. A similar instance occurs in Hebr. 1:10, and 
it frequently occurs in passing from one argument to 
another. See Hebr. 1:7, 7:8, 9, 20, 28, &c. » Then 
ὑποστείληταε Will have the same subject as in the Sep- 
tuagint and the original. It is in favour of this ex- 
planation that upon the other, Bloomfield’s supposition, 
the antithesis between the two clauses would seem to 
require ἐὰν δὲ ὑποστείληταε, instead of καὶ ἐάν. But 
admitting ὁ d/xacos to be the subject οὗ ὑποστείληταε, 
it can only be a general designation of one professedly 
acknowledged as a righteous man; for the first clause 
asserts ὁ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται, and this distinc- 
tion is kept up in the following verse. The remarks 
made on 6: 4 above, apply here. 

V. 39. οὐκ ἐσμὲν ὑποστολῆς. .. ἀλλὰ πίστεως. 
Here the abstract words are used for the concrete, to 
designate the two classes of backsliders and believers. 

εἰς περεποίησεν. This word obviously means the 
opposite of ἀπώλειαν, and hence ‘salvation. The kin- 
dred verb is used in Acts 20:28, and 1 Tim. 3: 18, 
τὴν ἐχχλησίων ... ἣν περεεποιήσατο (ὁ ϑεὸς) διὰ τοῦ 
αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου, “which He purchased with His own 
blood;” o¢ καλῶς Otaxovncavres, βαϑιμὸν ἑαυτοῖς 
καλὸν περιποιοῦνταιε, “purchase to themselves (or 


404 HEBREWS, CHAP. X. V. 39. 


acquire) a good degree.” In Xen. Cyropaid. IV. IV. 
10, we find τὰς ψυχὰς περεεποεήσασίε. In 1 Thess. 
5:9, the noun occurs in connexion with σωτηρίας, ἴῃ 
2 Thess. 2: 14, in the sense of ‘ acquisition’ (the act of 
acquiring), and in Eph. 1:14 and 1 Pet. 2:9, in the 
sense of ‘acquisition’ or ‘possession’ (the thing ac- 
quired). In 2 Chron. 14:12 (in Sept. 13), the Sep- 
tuagint use it as the translation for 7%, ἔπεσον 
Αἰϑέωπες ὥστε μὴ εἶναε ἐν αὐτοῖς περεποέησεν. Amidst 
these differing senses there is sufficient usage for the 
meaning of ‘salvation’ which the scope and context in 
this place demand. 


CHAPTER ΧΙ. 1—81. 


ANALYSIS. 


Tue great object of this Epistle is to enforce faith 
in Jesus Christ as the mediator of the new dispensa- 
tion, and to guard against apostacy from that faith, 
especially back to Judaism. Having shown Christ’s 
pre-eminence and excellence, and that in Him was the 
foundation of all the benefits of redemption, the author 
has just exhorted his readers to perseverance and pa- 
tience in their profession, that they may inherit the 
promises and receive the salvation of their souls. Suit- 
ably to the scope of the whole Epistle, and of the im- 
mediate context in particular, the Apostle, for the 
further establishment of his readers (compare 12:1 
and seq.), after a general and practical definition of 
faith, proceeds to show that the fathers had, by per- 
severance and patience inits exercise, regulated their 
lives and received their reward. This is proved by 
the example of Abel, ν. 4; of Enoch, vv. 5, 6; of 
Noah, v. 7; of Abraham, vv. 8-19; of Isaac, v. 20; 
of Jacob, v. 21; of Joseph, v. 22; of Moses, or his 
parents, vv. 23-28; of the Israelites in their exodus, 
vv. 29, 30; and of Rahab, v. 31. 

To sum up, Christ and the completeness of His 
redemption are the main subjects of the Epistle. The 


406 OHAP. XI.—ANALYSBIS. 


exercise of soul by which we embrace Him, and secure 
His redemption, is faith. Perseverance in this grace 
is inculcated on the Hebrew Christians, by showing 
that it was the principle which governed the admired 
conduct of the models of Jewish piety. 


BERBERS, OMAP. ΣῈ. wes 7. 407 


COMMENTARY. 


2 > Ls 
ΧΙ. 1 ἜἜστε δὲ πίστες, ἐλπεζομένων ὑπόστασις, πρα- 
’ £ » %Q 
9 , Ae > βλεπομένων. CE j . 
2 yuarav ἔλεγχος οὐ βλεπομένων. ν ταύτῃ γὰρ 
? Ul « t , ~ 
3 ἐμαρτυρηϑησαν of πρεςβυτέρο. 1ΠΠἰστεε νοοῦμεν 
, “~~ Γ ~ > 
κατηρτέσϑαε tous aiovas ῥήματε ϑεοῦ, εἰς TO μὴ 
Ύ 4 f 
4 ἐκ φαινομένων τὰ βλεπομενα γεγονένα. Πίστει 
πλείονα ϑυσίαν "AGeh παρὰ Καὶν προςήνεγχε τῷ 
ϑεῷ, δὲ ἧς ἐμαρτυρήϑη ἑέναε δίκαιος, μωρτυροῦν- 
τος ἐπὶ τοῖς δώροις αὐτοῦ τοῦ ϑεοῦ, καὶ δὲ αὐτῆς 
ἀποϑανὼν ἔτε λαλεΐταε. 


V.1. ὑπόστασες. Some interpreters, among whom 
are the authors of our English version, render this 
word ‘substance;’ others render it ‘firm persuasion.’ 
Both the senses are good, and accord with the uses of 
the word, as may be ascertained by reference to the 
common New Test. Lexicons. As was remarked un- 
der 1:3 above, in that place it must have the sense of 
‘substance,’ while in the other places in which it occurs 
in the New Test. (2 Cor. 9:4, 11:17, and Hebr. ὃ: 
14), it may have the sense of ‘confidence.’ In the 
Septuagint it is used as a translation for Monin, ‘ex- 
pectation,’ or ‘ hope,’ in Ps. 39: 8, and for mpm, ‘ hope,’ 
in Ruth 1:12. But yet the sense of ‘substance’ is to 
be preferred in the text under remark. It corresponds 
better, in the strength and fulness of its meaning, with 
such expressions as the following: 2 Cor. 5:7, dva 
πίστεως γὰρ᾽ περεπατοῦμεν, οὐ διὰ sidous; 2 Cor. 4: 


408 HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. αὶ 1. 


18, μὴ σκοπούντων ἡμῶν τὰ βλεπόμενα, ἀλλὰ τὰ μὴ 
βλεπόμενα, κιτ.λ.; ν. 18 below, πόρῥωϑεν auras ἰδόν- 
τὲς καὶ ἀσπασώμενοε, and V. 27, τὸν ἀόρατον ὡς δρῶν. 
The representation of faith contained in all these ex- 
pressions is, that it gives the soul a substantial reality 
upon which its actings may go forth, and its spiritual 
senses may fix themselves. Nor is the consideration 
valid, which is urged by Stuart in favour of rendering 
the word ‘confidence,’ that if the other meaning were 
adopted, we would more naturally expect it to be fol- 
lowed by some such word as σωμάτων, or ἀνώλων, ἴῃ 
order to carry out an antithesis more properly. The 
word ἐλπεζο μένων, as expressing things future and un- 
possessed, the objects of our anticipations, makes an 
antithesis entirely natural. It is not only true of faith 
that it is a ‘firm persuasion’ of the existence of such 
things, but that it gives them, so to speak, ‘present 
subsistence. It gives them the force of present reali- 
ties. This sense therefore includes the other, and is 
for this reason preferable, that, while it expresses all 
that is expressed by the other, it gives more fulness 
and strength to the Apostle’s words. i 
ἔλεγχος. This word occurs in Homer in the sense 
of ‘reproach,’ ‘shame,’ and is of the neuter gender. In 
the later writers it also means ‘ proof, ‘ demonstration,’ 
‘refutation.’ It occurs in the Septuagint as a transla- 
tion for mm2in, ‘arguments,’ ‘ reasonings,’ in Job 13:6 
and 23:4, and for mmm, ‘rebuke,’ in Hosea 5:9. 
From the meaning ‘demonstration,’ some interpreters 
have by metonymy derived the sense of * conviction.’ 


HEBREWS, OHAP. xT. ow. VD. 409 


Thus Wahl and Kuinoél render it ‘persuasio firma? 
But there is no usage to authorize this meaning. A 
better rendering is ‘ proof,’ ‘demonstration,’ or that of 
the English version, ‘evidence,’ if the latter be taken 
in the sense of Theophylact, quoted by Bretschneider’s 
Lex. δείξεν, φανέρωσεν ἀδήλων πραγμάτων. The 
sense here maintained for ἔλεγχος confirms that given 
above to ὑπόστασις. As faith realizes things hoped 
for, so it rings to view things unseen. The expressions 
already quoted from vv. 18, 27 below, confirm the pro- 
priety of this meaning. The kindred verb occurs fre- 
quently in the New Test. but the noun is only found 
in this place and in 2 Tim. 3:16, where it is translated 
‘reproof’ In John 3:20, the verb ἐλέγχω is used as 
an antithesis for φανερόω, thus defining its sense in 
that place to be similar: Πᾶς ὃ φαῦλα πράσσων... 
οὐκ ἔρχεταε πρὸς TO φῶς, ἵνα μὴ ἐλεγχϑὴ τὰ ἔργα av- 
τοῦ ὁ δὲ ποιῶν τὴν ἀλήϑειαν, ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸ φῶς, 
iva φανερωϑῇ αὐτοῦ τὰ ἔργα, #.t.4. The sense here 
is evidently that of ‘evincing, ‘evidencing the charac- 
ter of,’ the respective works. 

The faith here defined, and then illustrated through- 
out the chapter, is Christian faith in its generic nature, 
receiving every word of God, and including justifying 
faith; which is, so to speak, but one exercise of the 
general principle of faith, by which Christ is received 
as the Saviour. It is faith as a perfect Christian grace 
that is defined, not indeed perfect in the examples 
given, but strong; not feeble and sickly, as is too com- 
mon among. Christians. 


40 HEBREWS, OHAP. XI. VV. 2, 3. 


V.2. Ἐν ταύτῃ γὰρ ἐμαρτυρήϑησαν, x.r.d., ‘For 
by this were the fathers testified unto’ (as being true 
men of God). Such is the faith which governed the 
fathers, which we see illustrated in their lives, and 
which was the means of their winning that approval, 
divine and human, which makes them undoubted, un- 
disputed examples of the true follower of God. It is 
an appeal to them to show the practical nature of the 
faith just defined. The explanation we have given re- 
gards the particle γὰρ as introducing illustrative con- 
firmation of the proposition of v. 1, that faith is of 
such a nature. Winer, in the Id. New Test. $7. 2. (£), 
p. 55, does indeed give to this place a different connex- 
ion of thought, adopted from Griesbach and Knapp: 
‘There is a faith, a confidence, etc.; for by it the elders 
obtained a good report. But this is fanciful and un- 
authorized ; and his assertion that, with our sense, γὰρ 
would be wholly superfluous, is shown to be untrue 
by the fact that we have assigned it an intelligible 
force, strictly accordant with one of its usages: ‘The 
nature of faith is such (as is stated); for by just this 
principle the elders obtained a good report’ 

V.3. μή. This particle properly qualifies ysyo- 
γέναι, and its effect is to negative the whole phrase 
ἐκ φαινομένων ta βλεπόμενα γεγονέναι. See this 
well stated in Winer, Id. of New Test. $64. 4, p. 418. 
The doctrine of the verse clearly is, that created things 
had no previous existence ; a doctrine asserted, though 
less definitely, in Genesis, ch. 1 throughout, John 1:3, 
and Hebr. 1:2. This was contrary to the received 


HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. v. 4. 411 


philosophy of the day, which held that the matter of 
all created things, as well as the Creator, was from 
eternity. It is a doctrine against which reason now 
sometimes rebels. It is by a simple, implicit reception 
of the inspired statement on this point, that we learn 
its truth. 

V.4. πλείονα ϑυσίαν. These words are correctly 
translated by the English version, ‘a better sacrifice.’ 
Thus, in Matt. 6:25, we have ἡ wuyn πλεῖόν ἔστε τῆς 
τροφῆς. 12:41, 42, ᾿Ανδρες Nevevirac ... μετενόησαν 
εἰς τὸ κήρυγμα lava’ καὶ ἐδού, πλεῖον Ἰωνᾶ ads... . 
πλεῖον Σολομῶνος ὧδε. Other examples may be found 
in the Lexicons. From the idea of superiority in di- 
mension, or quantity in the words ‘more,’ ‘ greater,’ we 
easily pass to that of a general superiority. But in 
what was Abel’s sacrifice better than Cain’s? Be- 
cause it was offered by faith on Christ, the seed of the 
woman, promised in Gen. 3:15. Here, then, was a 
justifying faith ; and hence the writer proceeds to add, 
δὲ ἧς (scilicet πέστεως) ἐμαρτυρήϑη εἶναε δίκαεος, in 
allusion to the form of his expression in v. ὃ. Rom. 
1:17 and Hebr. 10:38 have taught us, in the words 
of Habakkuk, that faith is the instrument by which 
man is placed in a state of justification. Here the 
Apostle says that by faith he received the testimony 
of his being in that state. The latter is a consequence 
of the former. Since faith always implies a warrant, 
and the acceptableness of Abel’s sacrifice arose in part 
from its being a bloody offering, we have here a very 
strong indication that bloody sacrifices had been en- 


412 HEBREWS, OHAP. XI. V. 4. 


joined to Adam’s family from their expulsion out of 
Eden. ' 

μαρτυροῦντος... ϑεοῦ. How God signified his 
acceptance of Abel’s offering we are not told; the fact 
is plainly declared in Gen. 4:4, “And the Lord had 
respect unto Abel and to his offering.” 

λαλεῖται. There is here a doubtful reading. The 
majority of manuscripts give λαλεῖταε, but many man- 
uscripts, the Syriac, Arabic, Coptic, Armenian, Slavo- 
nic, and Vulgate versions, and many of the Fathers, 
give the active, λαλεῖ. This reading is also adopted 
by the majority of the critical editors of the New Test. 
as Bengel, Griesbach, Knapp, Scholz, and Hahn. It 
certainly gives a sense much to be preferred: ‘ By it . 
(his faith) Abel though dead yet teacheth, i. 6. the 
example of his faith is still a lesson to us. But if the 
_ passive voice is adopted, we must give a sense far less 
apposite and natural: By means of (or through) his 
faith Abel is spoken of, though now dead. With the 
amount of testimony from Mss. and versions in favour 
of λαλεῖ, we would venture to prefer it as the true 
reading. 


Ud ~ \ ~ ld 
5 Πίστει Ἐνὼχ μετετέϑη, τοῦ μὴ ἰδεῖν ϑάνατον" καὶ 
᾽ on 7 4 ‘ yeh ε΄ £ , ‘ 
οὐχ εὑρίσκετο, διότε μετέϑηκεν αὐτὸν ὁ isos. ITeo 
~ ᾽ ~ ‘ 
γὰρ τῆς μεταϑέσεως αὐτοῦ μεμαρτύρηταε εὐηρεὲ- 
~ ~ , > Lf 
6 στηκέναε τῷ ϑεῷ" χωρὶς δὲ πίστεως ἀδύνατον 
"ὦ -Ψ ‘ a , 

εὐαρεστῆσαι. Πιστεῦσαε γὰρ δεῖ τὸν προςερχόμε- 

~ ~ , , ~ > ~ ‘ 
γον τῷ ϑεῷ, Ore ἐστί" καὶ τοῖς ἐκζητοῦσεν αὐτὸν 


HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. vv. 5, 6. 413 


7 μισϑαποδότης γένεται. Πίστει, χρηματισϑεὶς Νῶε 
περὶ τῶν μηδέπω βλεπομένων, εὐλαβηϑεὶς κατε- 
σκεύασε κεβωτὸν εἰς σωτηρίαν τοῦ οἴχου αὑτοῦ" δὲ 
ἧς κατέχρενε τὸν χόσμον, καὶ τῆς κατὰ πίστιν 
δικαιοσύνης ἐγένετο χληρονόμος. 


V.5. Ἐνὼχ μετετέϑη. That this verb is correctly 
rendered ‘ was translated,’ or removed to heaven with- 
out dying, is proved by the words immediately suc- 
ceeding, τοῦ μὴ ἰδεῖν Pavaroyv. So the Septuagint 
render the words of Gen. 5: 24, Sis MP2 "2, ὅτε μετέ- 
Inxev αὐτὸν ὁ ϑεός, and so they are understood by 
Josephus, Philo, Onkelos, Jonathan, and the other 
‘ Jewish translators. The same verb is employed con- 
cerning the translation of Elijah in the Hebrew of 
2 Kings 2:9, 10, and is rendered by the Septuagint, 
ἀναλαμβάνω. ᾿ 

“Ὗ. 6. χωρὶς δὲ πίστεως ... πεστεῦσαε γὰρ δεῖ τὸν 
προςζερχόμενον, #.t.2. Here are developed two funda- 
mental objects of faith: 1, that God is; 2, that He re- 
wards those who seek after Him, and, by implication, 
punishes those who reject Him. The connexion of 
thought is this: Enoch obtained the glorious privilege 
of translation by his faith. This appears from the fact 
that the connexion in which his acceptableness to God 
is mentioned in Gen. 5:24 (And Enoch walked with 
God), evidently shows that this was the cause of his 
translation. He was translated because he so walked 
as to please God. But without faith it is impossible 
to please God. His faith therefore procured his trans- 


414 HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. v. 1%. 


lation. And then, to sustain the general assertion that 
without faith it is impossible to please Him, the author 
introduces (by γὰρ) the considerations drawn from 
the nature of his service. The very profession of his 
service implies a profession of a belief in his existence, — 
and in the certainty of his promises and threatenings. 
If these are not believed, why serve Him at all? But 
the sincere, practical, and operative belief of these is 
faith. 

ἐκζητοῦσεν. According to a familiar Old Test. 
usage, to seek after God is to seek after his law in or- 
der to obey it, to know, love, and serve Him. Thus, 
in Ps. 14:2, we have ΤΣ ΝΣ O75, “any that sought 
God.” 

V.%. Nae... εὐλαβηϑείς. This verb occurs also 
in Acts 23:10, with the sense of mere natural fear, 
implying nothing pious: εὐλαβηϑεὶς ὁ χιλίαρχος, μὴ 
διασπασϑῇ ὁ Παῦλος, κιτ.λ. As was remarked under 
5:7 above, to which place the reader is referred, the 
adjective εὐλαβῆς occurs several times in the New 
Test. and always in the sense of ‘pious fear.’ The 
noun εὐλαβεία has the same sense in a part, at least, 
of the places where it occurs. We would therefore 
interpret the word here, ‘moved with fear, a reveren- 
tial, pious fear, arising from his firm belief of the di- 
vine declaration. The first word of the sentence, 
πίστει, is to be regarded as dependent on εὐλωβηϑεὶς 
xareoxevaos, rather than on χρηματεσϑείς. We see 
here how exactly the principle that moved Noah cor- 
responds to the definition of v. 1. The things he 


HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. v. 7. 415 


sought to avoid by his obedience were not seen (τῶν 
μηδέπω βλεπομένων). Reason and sense gave no in- 
dication of them; he had no evidence of their reality 
but the mere dictum of God ( γρηματεσϑείςγ; but he 
acted just as he would have done in view of their im- 
mediate and visible presence. This ts faith. 

δὲ ἧς. Some refer this pronoun to πέστεε, some to 
κεβωτόν. The first reference much better suits the 
scope of the passage. As, in v. 4, Abel though dead 
yet teaches by his faith, so here, Noah by Azs faith im- 
pliedly condemned the unbelief of his hearers. The 
example of his obedient faith aggravated the inexcusa- 
bleness of their skepticism. 

τῆς χατὰ πίστεν δωεαεοσύνης “ληρονόμος. The 
righteousness here intended is, according to all usage 
and analogy of faith in the New Test. and especially 
in the writings of Paul, ‘justifying righteousness (i. e. 
that of the God-man, Christ) dmputed through faith 
To be convinced of this, let the reader weigh the force 
of the inspired language in Rom. 1:17, 9:30, 10:3, 
4, 5, 6, Phil. 3:9, compared with 3:6, 1 Cor. 1:80, 
consulting also Hodge’s Com. on Romans, on the pas- 
sages cited from that epistle. Without turning aside 
to a discussion of the usage of these words inappropri- 
ate to this work, we would only pause to indicate one 
obvious and overwhelming objection to all other inter- 
pretations than the one we have given, and especially 
to that founded on Rom. 4: 5, the believer’s “faith is 
counted to him for righteousness,” which asserts that 
the merits of the act of faith are graciously accepted 


416 HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. V. 7. 


by God as the ground of justification. This is indeed 
the only one of the erroneous interpretations which 
possesses even any degree of exegetical plausibility. 
Now it is most distinctly indicated in these passages, 
that the righteousness which is the ground of justifica- 
tion is God’s, and not man’s, consisting in what God 
has done, and not in what man has done in obedience 
to divine injunction; a truth which is consistent with 
no other definition of the righteousness of faith than 
that we have given. “The righteousness of God is re- 
vealed from faith to faith.” “They being ignorant of 
God's righteousness, and going about to establish their 
own righteousness,” &e. “For Christ is the end of the 
law for righteousness, to every one who believeth.” 
“The righteousness which is of the law is, ... the man 
which porma...shall live. But the righteousness 
which is of faith speaketh on this wise ... if thou shalt 
confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt be- 
lieve in thy heart that God hath raised Him from the 
dead, thou shalt be saved.” It is the opposite of 
‘doing? “Jesus Christ is made of God unto us right- 


eousness ; ” 


not our own faith. “That I may be found 
in Him” (Christ), “not having mine own righteous- 
ness, which is of the law, but that which is through” 
(only instrumentally) “the faith of Christ, the right- 
cousness which is of Gov by faith.” 

Because Noah is said in this connexion to have 
been justified by his faith, some say that the ark must 
-be understood as a type of Christ, and this particular 


act of Noah’s faith, as parallel to that of Abel in v. 4. 


HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. v. 8. 417 


But what is here affirmed of his faith is not necessarily 
referred to the particular exercise of it stated in the 
preceding clause. In the exercise of the same grace 
he prepared the ark to the condemnation of the world, 
and trusted in the promised seed to the saving of his 
soul. It was the same principle, acting with reference 
to different exigencies, and different truths coming 
from the same holy God, who cannot lie. 


8 Πίστεε καλούμενος ᾿βραὰμ ὑπήκουσεν ἐξελϑεῖν 
εἰς τὸν τόπον, ὃν ἤμελλε λαμβάνειν εἰς χκληρονο- 
μίαν καὶ ἐξῆλϑε, μὴ ἐπεστάμενος, ποῦ ἔρχεταε. 

9 Πίστεε παρῴκησεν εἰς [τὴν] yay τῆς ἐπαγγελέας 
ὡς ἀλλοτρίαν, ἐν σκηναῖς κατοικήσας, μετὰ Ἰσαὰκ 
καὶ Ἰαχὼβ τῶν συγαληρονόμων τῆς ἐπαγγελέας 

10 τῆς αὐτῆς ἐξεδέχετο γὰρ τὴν τοὺς ϑεμελέους 
ἔχουσαν πόλεν, ἧς τεχνίτης καὶ δημμουργὸς ὃ ϑεός. 

11 Πίστει καὶ αὐτὴ Lagoa δύναμιν εἰς κατωβϑολὴν 
σπέρματος ἔλαβε, καὶ παρὰ καιρὸν ἡλικίας | ἔτε- 
κέν), ἐπεὶ πιστὸν ἡγήσατο τὸν ἐπαγγειλάμενον. 

12 4.0 καὶ ἀφ᾽ ἑνὸς ἐγεννήϑησαν, καὶ ταῦτα νενε- 
«ρωμένου, καϑὼς τὰ ἄστρα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τῷ πλή- 
Pet, καὶ ὡς ἡ ἄμμος ἡ παρὰ τὸ χεῖλος τῆς ϑαλάσ- 
σης ἡ ἀναρέϑιμητος. 


V.8. ποῦ teyerac. The use of the present tense 
here instead of the past exhibits an instance of the 
mingling of the oratio obliqua and recta, which is com- 
mon. Another similar instance occurs in v. 13, ore 
ξένοι καὶ παρεπέδημοέ εἰσεν. The usage is explained 
by Winer, Id. New Test. 841. 2. (c), p. 211. 

27 


418 HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. vv. 9-12. 


V. 9. μετὰ Ἰσαώκ. The preposition here, as 
usually before the genitive, signifies merely accom- 
paniment, or participation in a common lot. 

V.11. Πίστει καὶ αὐτὴ Σάῤῥα. Though inered- 
ulous at first, as we learn from Gen. 18: 12-15, Sarah 
afterwards came under the influence of a prevalent 
faith, as was shown by the event. Abraham himself 
seems at first (Gen. 17:17) to have yielded to a simi- 
lar doubt, unless his laughter be referred to joy. 

εἰς καταβολὴν σπέρματος. This has been well 
rendered by the English version, “to conceive seed.” 
This is supposed by some to have been a technical ex- 
pression for conception. Kuinoél and others render it 
‘strength for founding a family, comparing with za- 
ταβολὴ τοῦ κόσμου in so many places. De Wette 
seems to incline to this sense, and it may perhaps be 
admitted as preferable. 

The Textus Receptus here inserts ἔτεκεν after 7Ac 
κίας. It is inserted in almost all the manuscripts, 
but is wanting in the Mss. a.p. 17, and in the Coptic, 
Sahidic, Aithiopic, and Vulgate versions. On their 
authority it is expunged by Griesbach, Vater, Scholz, 
and Hahn. If it be retained, the sense will be as in 
the English version, “Sarah received strength to con- 
ceive seed (or found a family), and was delivered of a 
child when she was past age.” If it be expunged, the 
sense will be, ‘Sarah received strength to conceive 
seed (or found a family) even after the time of her 
prime.’ 

V. 12. καὶ ταῦτα. This construction is aptly 


HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. v. 12. 419 


imitated in the English, ‘and that as good as dead’ 
We have here, says Winer, Id. New Test. $23. 4, pp. 
135, 136, an instance of the use of the plural pronoun 
for the singular, so that it might be correctly substi- 
tuted by τοῦτο. As to its construction, it must be re- 
garded asa kind of accusative absolute, approaching 
very nearly to a pronominal adverb. Cases of the 
use of the plural for the singular may also be seen in 
Luke 12:4, “Be not afraid of them who kill the body, 
and after that (μετὰ ταῦτα) have no more that they 
ean do;” John 15:17, Ταῦτα ἐντέλλομαι ὑμῖν, ive 
ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους ; and 8 John 4, ‘I have no greater 
joy than this (Meclorégav τούτων χαράν), to hear 
that my children walk in truth.” Matthiz’s Gr. Gram. 
II. $470. 6, p. 774, may also be consulted. 

γενεκρω μένου, ‘ He was dead for purposes of procre- 
ation. Compare Rom. 4:19, οὐ κατενόησε τὸ ἑαυτοῦ 


σῶμα ἤδη VEVEXOWMEVOY. 


\ , 2 Me τ Α 
18 Κατὰ πίστεν ἀπέϑανον οὗτοι πάντες, μὴ λαβόντες 
\ ? ’ 2 \ δὺς 5 A ᾽ Γ 
τὰς énuyyshias, ἀλλὰ πόῤῥωϑεν αὐτὰς ἰδόντες 
Υ͂ x I 
[χαὶ πεεισϑέντες] καὶ ἀσπασάμενοι, καὶ ὁμολογή- 
ca r , Ὕ ~ 
σαντὲς, ore ἕενος καὶ παρεπίδημοί stow éat τῆς 
- € \ ~ fi ? r 
14 γῆς. Ot γὰρ τοιαῦτα λέγοντες ἐμφανέζουσεν, ὅτε 
ᾳ ? ~ . 3 > > ῇ 
15 πατρίδα ἐπεζητοῦσε. Καὶ εἰ μὲν ἐκείνης ἐμνημό- 
a, ee τ Ie~ 3) nN A 2 
vevov ap ἧς ἐξῆλθον" siyov ἂν καιρὸν ava- 
la Ὁ 2 Υ͂ ~ 7 
10 χαμψαε vuvi δὲ χρείττονος ὀρέγονταε, τοῦτ 
yw ? , \ > ᾿ 2 A 
EOTLY, ἑπουρανίου. ALO οὐκ ἐπαισχύνεταε αὐτοὺς 
ε oe ΑΞ Aus ? ~ 2 ~ c , \ 
ὁ ϑέος, ϑεὸς ἐπεκαλεῖσθαε «ὑὐτῶν ἡτοίμασε γὰρ 


490 HEBREWS, OHAP. XI. vv. 138, 16. 


17 αὐτοῖς πόλεν. Πίστει προςενήνοχεν ‘ASoucu τὸν 
Ἰσαὰκ πεεραζόμενος, καὶ τὸν μονογενῆ προςέφερεν, 

18 ὁ τὰς ἐπαγγελίας ἀναδεξάμενος, πρὸς ὃν ἐλα- 
λήϑη" “Ὅτε ἐν Ἰσαὰκ κληϑηήσεταί oor σπέρμα" 

19 λογεσώμενος, ὅτε καὶ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἐγείρεεν δυνατὸς ὃ 
ϑεός" ὅϑεν αὐτὸν καὶ ἐν παραβολῇ ἐκομίσατο. 


V.13. μὴ λαβόντες τὰς ἐπαγγελίας. We have 
here ἃ clear metonymy of ‘ promises’ for ‘ things prom- 
ised.’ Literally speaking, they had received the prom- 
ises, for they were the basis of their faith. What those 
things promised were, appears from vy. 10, 14-16, ‘a 
city having foundations,’ scilicet heaven, and a heavenly 
inheritance. 

Between ἐδόντες and ἀσπασώμενοει, the Textus Re- 
ceptus inserts καὶ πειεσϑέντες. These words are want- 
ing in most of the manuscripts, versions, early editions, 
and Fathers. They are accordingly usually cancelled 
by the critical editors. 

ξένοι καὶ παρεπέδημιοι. These words contain an 
obvious reference to the language of Abraham to the 
children of Heth, “I am a stranger and a sojourner 
with you;” of Isaac to Jacob, Gen. 28:4, “that thou 
mayest inherit the land wherein thou art a stranger, 
which God gave unto Abraham;” and of Jacob to 
Pharaoh, Gen. 47:9, “the days of the years of my pil- 
grimage are a hundred and thirty years.” But ina 
true and proper sense, all believers are strangers and 
sojourners in the world. | 

V.16. ϑεὸς ἐπικαλεῖσϑαε αὐτῶν. These words 
are explanatory of οὐκ ἐπαισχύνεταε αὐτούς, ‘ Where- 


HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. vv. 17-19. 421 


fore God is not ashamed of them, (viz. ashamed) ‘to 
be called thezr God? To insert ovds, as does Stuart 
(‘nor to be called their God’), obscures, instead of as- 
sisting the sense. 

V.17. χαὶ τὸν μονογενῆ. καὶ here may be best 
translated ‘yea,’ authority for which may be seen in 
Winer’s Id. New Test. $57. 2, p. 344. The meaning 
‘and’ would not here be inapposite, but the former is 
preferable. 

V.18. ἐν Ἰσαὰκ κληϑήσεταί oot σπέρμα. The 
verb here does not express a mere esse. ‘in Isaac shall 
be thy seed’ The Hebrew, Gen. 21:12, whence these 
words are extracted, is 8229. To make it merely equal 
to the verb of existence most unwarrantably emascu- 
lates the meaning. On the contrary, where the verb 
καλοῦμαι signifies ‘is denominated,’ it carries a sense 
even. opposed to «¢vae. ‘The meaning here and in Gen- 
esis is, ‘The descendants through Isaac are those who 
have been pronounced by me the seed,in the cove- 
nanted sense.’ 

V.19. ἐν παραβολῇ. Some consider this phrase 
as equivalent to παρωβολῶς, ‘inopinato, ‘unexpect- 
edly.’ This seems to us the least probable view. Many 
of the commentators, ancient and modern, render the 
words, ‘in a figure,’ i. e. typically, of Christ’s sacrifice 
and resurrection. In 9:9 above, παραϑολὴ undoubt- 
edly has this sense. The most recent commentators 
understand the words in the sense of ‘in comparison,’ 
i. 6. ‘ simili modo :’ ‘He received him, as it were, from 
the dead’ The sense thus given to παραβολὴ would 


422 HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. Vv. 19. 


correspond well with its composition and primary mean- 
ing; but examples of such a usage in the New Test. 
are wanting. 

ὅϑεν ... ἐχομίσατο. Odsy may relate to ἐκ ve- 
“ρῶν. Some refer this language to Abraham’s recep- 
tion of his son from God at his first conception; and 
point, in illustration, to the words of v. 12, καὶ ταῦτα 
γενεχρωμένου. ‘This sense seems to us preferable. 
Others understand it as meaning that Abraham re- 
ceived his son back from the altar, Isaac being, as it 
were, dead in his father’s opinion and his own. In 
support of this view, Bloomfield says, κομέζω never 
means simply to obtain, but to receive back, either in 
the way of recovering what is lost, or in return for 
something given. But to confine ourselves to this 
Epistle, let the reader consult 10:36, 11:39, in both 
of which that sense is obviously found, and compare 
them with 11: 18, λαβόντες. The Lexicons also assert 
the same, though they translate by ‘to receive back’ 
in this place. We may then render ὅϑεν, ‘ wherefore,’ 
and make it relate to Abraham’s faith. 


20 Πίστεε περὲὸ μελλόντων εὐλόγησεν ἸΙσκὼκ τὸν 
21 Ἰακὼβ καὶ τὸν Ἠσαῦ. Πίστεε Ἰακὼ ἀποϑνή- 
cxav ἕκαστον τῶν υἱῶν Ἰωσὴφ εὐλόγησε" καὶ 
προςφεκύνησεν ext τὸ ὥκρον τῆς ῥάβδου αὑτοῦ. 
22 Πίστει Ἰωσὴφ τελευτῶν περὶ τῆς ἐξόδου τῶν υἱῶν 
Ἰσραὴλ ἐμνημόνευσε, καὶ περὶ τῶν ὀστέων αὑτοῦ 


HEBREWS, OHAP. XI. Vv. 20, 21. 423 


23 ἐνετείλατο. {Πίστει Mavane γεννηθεὶς ἐκρύβη 
τρέμηνον ὑπὸ τῶν πατέ ἕρων αὑτοῦ, διότε εἶδον 
ἀστεῖον τὸ παιδίον" καὶ οὐκ ἐφοβήϑησαν τὸ διεώ- 
rayua τοῦ βασελέως. 


Vv. 20, 21. These words reveal to us the nature 
of the patriarchal blessings. They were prophetic and 
inspired. But it may be asked how it was that Isaac 
blessed his heir ‘by faith of things to come,’ when he 
mistook Jacob for Esau? We answer, he pronounced 
the blessing in the faith that God would bring it to 
pass on the subject of it; and though he thought the 
subject was Esau, when he discovered his mistake, he 
recognised in it the overruling providence of God, and 
could not and did not reverse it. He assures Esau, in 
the midst of his grief, ‘Yea, and he (Jacob) shall be 
blessed.’ 

ἀποϑνήσκων. We have here the present partici- 
ple, which we will not, with some interpreters, regard 
as used for a future, ‘about to die.’ The present prop- 
erly expresses that action which is already commenced, 
though its completion is still future. Jacob was then 
dying ; not indeed in ‘the article of death ;’ but popu- 
larly, the closing scene of his life had begun. See 
Winer’s Id. New Test. 846. 5, p. 274. 

προφςεκύνησεν. ‘This is the word used by the Sep- 
tuagint for mt, Gen. 47:31, where the English ver- 
sion renders it “bowed himself.” But the word is 
properly rendered here as there, ‘ worshipped, ‘This 
act of worship did not take place at the time of the 


424 HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. V. 23. 


blessing which is referred to in the first clause of v. 21; 
for that blessing really occurred afterwards. This is 
evident from Gen. 48:1, 15, 16; but it is evident from 
the whole narrative that the events were nearly con- 
tiguous. The inversion of the incidents has been al- 
ready noticed in 10: 38 above. 

τῆς ῥάβδου. The Hebrew word is 72, which the 
Masorites point 72, and so read all the ancient ver 
sions except the Septuagint. These translators have 
evidently read the word as if pointed ma, ῥώβδος: 
and they are followed by cur author. This is doubt- 
less the true reading; though Bloomfield, following 
Rosenmiiller, Gesenius, Kuinoél, prefers the former. 
To say nothing of the form of oriental beds in general, 
inspiration could not sanction such an error of fact, 
and one so causeless and inexplicable, as the substitu- 
tion of Jacob’s bed-head for his staff. 

V. 23. τῶν πατέρων. This word is here properly 
translated, ‘his parents.’ Thus, in Eph. 6:1, we have 
the precept, ‘ Children, obey your parents, τοῖς γονεῦσε, 
which is explained in v. 2 by Τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου 
καὶ τὴν μητέρα, and in vy. 4 these parties are addressed 
concerning their correlative duties to their children as 
οἱ πατέρες. A comparison of Col. 3:20, 21, gives a 
similar instance. A few examples of the same usage 
are adduced from the classics. 





, “. - 4 , ΄ , 
94 Iiorsee Mations μέγας γενόμενος ἠρνήσατο Aéys- 
« ~ « 4 
25 σϑαε υἱὸς ϑυγατρὸς Pagaw, μᾶλλον ἑλόμενος 
x ~ ~ ~ os \ , 
συγκακουχεῖσθϑαε τῷ λαῷ τοῦ ϑεοῦ, ἢ πρόςκαερον 


HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. v. 26. 425 


“i ~ 
26 ἔχειν ἁμαρτίας ἀπολαυσεν, μείζονα πλοῦτον ἡγη- 
- γ , ~ 
σώμενος τῶν ἕν Αἰγύπτῳ ϑησαυρῶν τὸν ὀνεεδε- 
Ἁ ~ ~~. 2 if \ > \ 
σμὸν τοῦ Χριστοῦ" ἀπέβλεπε yao εἰς τὴν μεσϑα- 
27 ποδοσίαν. Πίστεε κατέλεπεν Αἴγυπτον, μὴ φοβη- 
QO rn \ \ ~ ta Ν" \ \ ΩΝ 
tele τὸν ϑυμὸν τοῦ βασελεως " τὸν γὰρ aogarov 
~ > r , ff 
28 ὡς ὁρῶν ἐκαρτέρησε. “ΠῚ ίστεε πεποίηκε τὸ πάσχα 
΄ ~ r cr \ c > 
καὶ THY πρόςχυσεν TOU αἵματος, iva μὴ ὁ Oho- 
[4 ~ , iy 
29 ϑρεύων τὰ πρωτότοκα, ϑίγῃ αὐτῶν. Worse δεέ- 
> \ ᾿ \ le ~ ΓΖ 
βησαν τὴν ἐρυϑρὰν ϑάλασσαν ὡς διὰ ξηρᾶς" ἣς 
~ “ ΙΔ lf 
30 πεῖραν λαβόντες ot Αἰγύπτεοε xarenod your. Πό-: 
, » > Χ 
στεε τὰ τείχη Ἱερεχὼ ἔπεσε, χνυκλωϑέντα ἐπὶ ἑπτὰ 
[2 r 
31 ἡμέρας. Πίστεε Ῥαὰβ i πόρνη ov συναπωλετο 
- 5] Ld 4 ‘ “ 
τοῖς ἀπεεϑήσασε, δεξαμένη TOUS κατασκόπους μετ᾽ 
3 / 
εἰρήνης. 


V. 206. ὀνειδισμὸν τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Stuart and 
others regard these words as signifying that Moses 
bore reproach ‘like that of Christ, or ‘after his exam- 
ple’ It is better to interpret them as meaning ‘the 
reproach which falls on His followers for His sake,’ or 
with Bloomfield, Kuinoél, and others, ‘the reproach in- 
eurred by their professed expectations and hopes of a 
Messiah.” In 1 Cor. 10:4, a passage which throws 
much light on the object of the faith of Old Test, 
saints at this time, it is said, “They drank of that 
spiritual Rock that followed them; and that Rock 
was Christ;” and in 10:9 it is said, “Neither let us 
tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted.” Christ 
was the Angel who led them through the wilderness 
(see Hengstenberg’s Christology, Vol. I); so that 


there is a more literal and direct relation between 


496 HEBREWS, OHAP. XI. vv. 27-81. 


Him and the faith and obedience of the Hebrews, 
than at first sight would appear. 

V.27. xearéhiney Αἴγυπτον. This does not refer 
to Moses’ flight to Midian, recorded in Ex. 2: 14, 
but to the exode of him and the nation forty years 
afterwards. 

V. 28. πεποίηκε τὸ πάσχα. This verb, like the 
Hebrew “wv? in similar connexions, may either mean, 
‘he prepared the passover, ‘observed it,’ procuring, 
sacrificing and cooking the lamb, ete. ; or it may mean, 
‘he instituted it. | 

τὸ πάσχα. This word is an imitation, in Greek let- 
ters, of the Hebrew word of later origin, 870, which 
was used for 7&2, from MOB, ‘to pass over.’ The origin 
of the rite and the name as explained in Exod. 12:7, 
18, is familiar to all. ᾿ 

ὃ ὀλοϑρεύων. ‘This is the rendering of the Septua- 
gint for mnt, in Ex. 12: 23. 

V. 80. χυκλωϑέντα. Some German critics under- 
stand this word as describing circumvallations, drawn 
by Joshua around the walls of Jericho. To refute this 
rendering, it is sufficient to refer to the narrative in 
Josh. 6:1-21. The walls were “encircled” by the 
sacred and military procession. 

V. 31. ἡ πόρνη. The Septuagint have rightly 
used this word for 771, Josh. 2:1. James 2:25 gives 
to Rahab the same title. The Hebrew word is the 
feminine participle of 7:3, ‘to commit whoredom ;’ 
and should not be derived from 771, ‘to feed, or ‘nour- 
ish.” No such use of πόργη for ‘ hostess’ can be found ; 


HEBREWS, CHAP. ΧΙ. v. 81]. 497 


and the apostles would not have endorsed a slanderous 
translation. Still, Rahab may have also exercised the 
functions of a hostess. 

On all these instances of old believers, it is suffi- 
cient to make the one remark, that their conduct all 
iulustrates the same generic principle: an undoubting 
acceptance of the mere divine word as true, an acting 
upon it as though the things it revealed or promised 
were already visible realities, evident to natural reason 
and sense. 


CHAPTER ΧΙ. 32—XII. 11. 


ANALYSIS. 


Tue author, to save time, briefly refers to other ex- 
amples of the ancient worthies, 11: 382-38, declaring 
in conclusion, that, though they all obtained a good 
testimony through faith, yet in the divine arrangement 
they enjoyed not the advantages of the Christian dis- 
pensation; God having reserved this glorious privilege 
for us, who thus receive what they saw by faith, and 
what alone secures to them and us the perfection which 
we need, vy. 39, 40. 

The Apostle then resumes his exhortation to his 
readers, to patient and persevering adherence to their 
profession, notwithstanding all the trials to which it 
subjected them, 12: 1-13. First, in view of the bright 
examples which have been just referred to, v. 1. Sec- 
ond, above all, the efficient help of Christ, to whom 
they must ever look, and the glorious example which 
He has set, which they must attentively consider, vv. 
2,3. Third, the comparative lightness of their trials ; 
they had not yet reached the extreme, v. 4. Fourth, 
the proofs of God’s love in them, declared in a quota- 
tion which represents them as chastisements upon His 
children, vv. 5, 6; upon which the Apostle remarks, 
a) that the proof of their sonship depended upon their 
patient endurance, and ὦ) that to be without trials 
argued desertion by God, as though they were not true 


CHAP. ΧΙ, XII.—ANALYSIS. 429 


children, vv. 7, 8. Fifth, we reverenced our earthly 
parents, who, subject to all the infirmities of humanity, 
chastened us as appeared good to them: much more 
should we cheerfully submit to the chastisements of 
our spiritual Father, who by them seeks to promote 
our sanctification and salvation, vv. 9,10. Sixth, this 
gracious end, though the means were grievous for the 
present, would certainly follow, v. 11. 


430 HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. Vv. 82, 88. 


COMMENTARY. 


82 Καὶ τί ἔτε λέγω; Ἐπελείψειε yao μὲ διηγούμενον ὃ 
’ ‘ , / Ὕ “ ‘ 
χρόνος περὲ Γεδεῶν, Sagi τε καὶ Dauwor, καὶ 
Ἰεφϑάε, Aavid re καὶ Σαμουήλ, καὶ τῶν προφη- 
88 τῶν " ot διὰ πίστεως κατηγωνίσαντο βασελείας, 
4 
εἰργάσαντο δικαιοσύνην, ἐπέτυχον ἐπαγγελεῶν, 
, Α » 
34 ἔφραξαν orouara λεόντων, ἔσβεσαν δύναμεν πυ- 
, » U4 ? 
00s, ἔφυγον στόματα μαχαέρας, ἐνεδυναμωώϑθησαν 
ΕἸ \ > Ud Ἴ (i 3 x 7 (4 
ano ἀσϑενείας, ἐγενηϑησαν ἰσχυροὶ ἐν πολέμῳ, 
85 παρεμβολὰς ἔκλεναν ἀλλοτρίων " ἔλαβον γυναῖ- 
γὼ ? r ~ ” 
κες ἐξ ἀναστάσεως TOUS νεκροὺς αὑτῶν" ἄλλοε δὲ 
ἐτυμπανίσϑησων, οὐ προςδεξάμενοε τὴν ἀπολύτρω- 
a a ’ 
σεν, ἵνα κρείττονος ἀναστάσεως τύχωσιν * 


Va eee λεγω; The verb here may be either 
subjunctive, or indicative present. If the former, τέ 
will mean what? giving the sense,‘ What can I say 
more?’ In the latter case, we must render τέ why? 
giving the sense, ‘Why doI say more?’ The latter 
is to be preferred. 

In the following enumeration, the names do not 
occur in chronological order; nor do the names and 
deeds correspond each to each, in the order in which 
they stand. Indeed, several of the acts may be refer- 
red to the same person, as, on the other hand, it may 
be meant that several of the persons have performed 
the same deed of faith. 

V. 33. εἰργάσαντο Otxavoovyny. There is no suf- 


HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. vv. 34, 35. 481 


ficient reason for limiting these acts of righteousness 
to the public administration of justice, as is done by 
some. The general meaning given to the word in 
the New Test. Lexicons is sufficient evidence of this. 
In Acts 10:35, Peter says concerning Cornelius’ 
good deeds, and especially his prayers and alms, “ [ἢ 
every nation he that feareth God and worketh right- 
eousness (ἐργαζόμενος dexacoovyny) 15 accepted with 
him.” 

V. 34. ἀσϑενείας. This word has in like manner 
been unnecessarily limited to bodily sickness. It is 
not only illustrated by the sickness of Hezekiah, Is. 
88:9, but by the cases of Joshua, Barak, Samson, 
David, and others, of whom no bodily infirmity is 
related. 

V. 35. ἐξ ἀναστάσεως. 'The preposition ἐκ is 
used of any source or cause, as is stated in Winer’s Id. 
New Test. $51. a, p. 297. Its force here is to signify 
the source from which some believing women, of whom 
the Shunammite woman in 2 Kings 4:35 is an exam- 
ple, received their dead again. 

ἐτυμπανέσϑησαν. English version, “were tor- 
tured.” It is usually supposed that the instances be- 
fore the Apostle’s mind were those of 2 Maccabees 6: 
19. What the exact punishment was, it is not easy to 
ascertain. Most writers suppose that it consisted in 
stretching the victim on a rack or drum, and beating 
him to death.. This seems the most probable explana- 
tion, upon comparing the terms employed by Josephus 
and Maccabees. The mode of torment may be illus- 


482 HEBREWS, OHAP. XI. Vv. 35. 


trated by the modern punishments of the bastinado 
and breaking on the wheel. 

ov προςδεξάώμενοι τὴν ἀπολύτρωσεν. They would 
not receive deliverance on the terms proposed to them, 
viz. recantation or renunciation of their faith. 

κρείττονος ἀναστάσεως. There are three interpre- 
tations of these words, each giving a different object 
of comparison. The first is, ‘They preferred martyr- 
dom to recantation, in order that they might attain a 
better resurrection than that of apostates and other 
sinners, the glorious resurrection of saints instead of 
the fearful one of the lost. According to the second, 
the object of comparison is the resurrection mentioned 
in the former part of the verse, that which restored 
the son of the Shunammite, for instance, to a tempo- 
rary enjoyment of life in this imperfect world. If this 
interpretation is adopted, and it seems to us the most 
probable, we are to understand that it is the author 
and not the martyrs, who makes the comparison be- 
tween this boon, and the resurrection to undying bliss 
to which they aspired. They sought a resurrection, in 
his opinion, better; they were probably not thinking 
of any such comparison. The third explanation sup- 
poses that the present life was the thing contrasted 
with the resurrection. On this understanding, the 
contrast is made in the minds of the martyrs them- 
selves. The two alternatives given them were resto- 
ration (ἀπολύτρωσεν) to life on condition of apostacy ; 
or death, with the prospect of a glorious resurrection, 
They preferred the latter as better than life. 


HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. vv. 37-40. 483 


36 ἕτεροε δὲ ἐμπαιγμῶν καὶ μαστίγων πεῖραν ἔλα- 

37 Gov, ἔτε δὲ δεσμῶν καὶ φυλακῆς ἐλεϑαάσϑησαν, 
ἐπρίσϑησαν, ἐπεεράσϑησαν, ἐν φόνῳ μαχαίρας 
ἀπέϑανον" περιῆλθον ὃν μηλωταῖς, ἐν αἰγείοις 
δέρμωσεν, ὑστερούμενοι, ϑλεβόμενοι, κακουχού- 

38 μενοι, (ὧν οὐκ ἣν ἄξιος ὃ κόσμος,) ἕν ἐρημίαις 
πλανώμενος καὶ ὄρεσε, καὶ σπηλαίοις καὶ ταῖς 

39 ὀπαῖς τῆς γῆς. Καὶ οὗτοι πάντες μαρτυρηϑέντες 
διὰ τῆς πίστεως, οὐκ δχομίσαντο τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν, 

40 τοῦ ϑεοῦ περὸ ἡμῶν κρεῖττόν τε προβϑλεψαμένου, 
ive μὴ χωρὶς ἡμῶν τελεεωϑῶσε. 


V. 81. ἐπειράσϑησαν. There seems to be a diffi- 
culty in the presence of a general word like this, in the 
midst of specific terms. Various readings have been 
suggested, but all unsustained. Several manuscripts, 
the Syriac and AXthiopic versions, and two or three 
of the Fathers, omit it; but this is not sufficient to 
authorize its omission from the text. Most probably 
it refers to the severe trials of the faith of the old 
saints in the various tortures and sufferings which 
they underwent. 

V. 89. τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν. The clause here is the 
same as in 10:36 above, and presents an instance of 
metonymy equally clear. The promise is set for the 
thing promised. The latter they did not possess, 
during their mortal life, but only looked for it with a 
prospective faith. 

V. 40. χρεῖττόν τε. There is much dispute what 
this better thing is. That the fathers under the old 
dispensation did receive the temporal blessings prom- 

28 


484 HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. v. 40. 


ised, history and the Apostle himself declare. Besides, 
the ‘ better thing’ was something which they all alike 
failed to possess (οὗτοι πάντες οὐκ ἐχομίσαντο), and 
some at least, as Gideon, Samuel, David, enjoyed a full 
share of these temporal blessings. That the old saints 
received the eternal rewards of their piety, both his- 
tory and the Apostle teach. To see this we need only 
refer to ch. 4, where God’s rest is proposed to them as 
tous. The ‘better something’ then can only be the 
promised Messiah (ἐπαγγελέαν), the object of their 
faith and intense desire, and the sole ground of the 
perfect blessings of redemption to believers of every 
age. In 9:15 above, we learn that the transgressions 
under the first testament were redeemed by Him. 
The privilege of seeing Christ, of knowing that the 
work of atonement was complete, of having a spiritual 
instead of a typical dispensation, were provided for us, 
in preference to Old Testament believers. The pas- 
sage may be illustrated by Matt. 13:16, 17. By re- 
ferring to this superior privilege, the author would 
arouse in his readers a grateful emulation, and thus 
prepare them for the exhortation which follows in 
#2: 1. 


xin. Τοιγαροῦν καὶ ἡμεῖς, τοσοῦτον ἔχοντες πε- 
ρεπείμενον ἡμῖν νέφος μαρτύρων, ὄγκον ἀποϑέμε- 
yo. πώντα, καὶ τὴν εὐπερίστατον ἁμαρτίαν, δὲ 
ὑπομονῆς τρέχωμεν τὸν προκείμενον ἡμῖν ἀγῶνα" 


HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. Vv. 1. 435 


2 ἀφορῶντες εἰς τὸν τῆς πίστεως ἀρχηγὸν καὶ τελεεω- 
τὴν Ἰησοῦν, ὃς ἀντὶ τῆς προχεεμένης αὑτῷ χαρᾶς, 
ὑπέμεινε σταυρόν, αἰσχύνης καταφρονήσας, ἐν δεξεᾷ 

8 re τοῦ ϑρόνου τοῦ ϑεοῦ xexadixev. ‘Avahoyt- 
σασϑε γὰρ τὸν τοιαύτην ὑπομεμενηκότα ὑπὸ τῶν 
ἁμαρτωλῶν εἰς αὑτὸν ἀντελογίαν, ἵνα μὴ κάμητε 

4 ταῖς ψυχαῖς ὑμῶν, ἐχλυόμενο. Οὔπω μέχρις 
αἵματος ἀντικατέστητε πρὸς τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἄντα- 
γωνεζόμενοε" 


V.1. μαρτύρων. The original sense of this word 
is, ‘witnesses.’ Often it means witnesses forensically, 
but oftener it is used generally of any one testifying 
what he has seen, heard, or had revealed. In the last 
sense, even Christ is called 6 μάρτυς 6 πεστός, Rev. 1: 
5, 3:14. With this may be compared the symbolical 
witnesses of Rey. 11:3. ‘This witnessing, in the com- 
mon uses of the word, is by mouth. In Acts 22:20, 
Rev. 2:18, 17:6, Stephen, Antipas, and the martyrs 
of Jesus, witnessed also by their death; whence the 
word passed to the ecclesiastical writers in the sense 
of ‘martyrs,’ ‘ confessors,’ 1. 6. those who die or suffer 
for the truth; a sense not found in the classics. The 
idea of testemony seems therefore in all cases prominent 
in the word. Hence Wahl says here, it is used ‘de 
personis exemplo suo testantibus aliquid.’ Bretschnei- 
der renders, ‘ testis qui suo exemplo testatur, confirmat 
aliquid” Both cite Jos. contra Apion. 1.7. No ex- 
ample has been adduced where the word is used in the 
sense of ‘spectator’ simply. We therefore adhere to 
the sense of ‘ witnesses,’ here, i. 6. those who by the 


436 HEBREWS, OHAP. XII. V. l. 


examples of their faith have testified to God and his 
promises, and his service. The possession of such a 
cloud of glorious examples is a powerful stimulus to 
perseverance. 

ὄγκον. This noun in general means ‘a burden,’ 
‘incumbrance.’ The English version has well rendered 
it ‘weight,’ having in view the idea of a race. 

εὐπερίστατον ἁμαρτίαν. This adjective occurs 
nowhere else in the New Test. It is evidently from 
περεΐστημε, Whence we have the noun περέστασες, 
meaning ‘circumstance,’ ‘condition,’ and then ‘peril, 
‘trouble, the adjective ὠπερέστατος meaning ‘free 
from danger or trouble, and (according to Liddell & 
Scott) also, ‘helpless, ‘defenceless;’ and therefore 
εὐπερίστατος would mean ‘full of danger, &c. Thus 
many render it. Others, taking it actively from περε- 
iornut, render it ‘besetting on every hand.’ This is 
the interpretation of Chrysostom, ἡ εὐκόλως περεῖστά- 
uwvn ἡμᾶς. These two senses amount to the same, and 
are the best. Some, deriving from περίστατος, ‘ sur- 
rounded by,’ &ec. understand εὐπερίστατον here as 
‘well surrounded,’ i. 6. ‘popular’ Others render it 
‘well wound around us,’ like a garment; a sense which 
presents a slight resemblance to περέκεεταε ἀσϑένεεαν, 
in 5:2 above. So substantially translate Kuinoél and 
Bloomfield. Upon any interpretation, καὶ must be 
rendered ‘even’ or ‘especially. Compare Winer’s Id. 
New Test. $57. 2.(d), p. 844. The question still re- 
mains, whether the Apostle intends by éuaeriay some 
peculiar besetting sin, or sin in general, as that which 


HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. Vv. 2. 437 


besets us on every hand. On this it may be suflicient 
to say, that neither of these senses can be shown to be 
inappropriate. 

ἀγῶνα. This word denotes generally ‘any con- 
test’ in the games. Hence those who strove were 
ἀγωνίσταε. ‘The contest here is that of a race, a figure 
used by the Apostle Paul in Acts 20:24, 1 Cor. 9: 
94-96, Gal. 5:7, 2 Tim. 4:7; a slight argument for 
his authorship of this Epistle. 

V.2. ἀφορῶντες. Christians must run ‘looking 
off’ from every thing else to Jesus. 

ἀρχηγὸν καὶ τελεεωτήν. Properly these words 
signify ‘author and finisher” It is proper to regard 
them as referring to the race in which Christians are 
engaged. But they convey a deeper meaning than 
the word ἀγωνοϑέτης, or βραβευτής, by which some 
have proposed to explain them. The Apostle, in di- 
recting us to look to Christ in the race of our faith, 
proposes him as more than the ‘director’ and ‘um- 
pire’ of the games. We prefer to give to τελεεωτῆς 
here, the same meaning which was first indicated in 
the remarks on 2:10 above. The author teaches us 
that Christ engages us in this race at first, that it 
is His help and strength which bring us to the goal, 
and that itis He who crowns us with glory at the 
last. 

σταυρὸν... αἰσχύνης. The omission of the article 
before these words is noticeable. It would be better 
to suppose that it was intentional, and that the writer 
intended by it to give a general sense to the phrase, 


438 HEBREWS, OHAP. XII. vv. 8, 4. 


than to supply them arbitrarily as is done by the 
English version. 

ἐχάϑεσεν. The best manuscripts and the early 
critical editions read here the perfect indicative active, 
κεκάϑεκεν. 

V. 8. ἀντελογίαν. This noun occurs in the New 
Test. only here, in 6:16, and 7:7 above, and in Jude 
11. In this place it seems to denote, not merely con- 
tradiction by words, as in the two places above, but 
also by deed. Such is its sense in Jude 11, ὠντελογέᾳ 
τοῦ Κορέ, ‘the gainsaying of Corah, in the English 
version. His opposition to Moses was not limited to 
verbal contradiction. 

ταῖς ψυχαῖς may be construed either with zaunre 
or ἐχλυόμενοι. Both the words seem to_be borrowed 
from the palestra, the figure of which is still prevalent 
in the writer’s mind. 

V.4. ἁμαρτίαν. Many explain this as an ab- 
stract used for a concrete, ‘striving against sinners.’ 
Others more properly understand it as a personifica- 
tion, and suppose an allusion to the παγκράτεον. 
Their contest was with sin in all its opposing forms 
within and without. 


5 καὶ ἐκλέλησϑε τῆς παρακλήσεως, ἥτες ὑμῖν ὡς υἱοῖς 
δεαλέγεταε" “υἱέ μου, μὴ ὀλεγώρεε παιδείας κυ- 
6 ρέου, μηδὲ ἐχλύου Um αὐτοῦ ἐλεγχόμενος " ὃν γὰρ 
ἀγαπᾷ κύριος, παεδεύεε" μαστεγοῖ δὲ πάντα υἱὸν 


HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. Vv. 5, 6. 489 


ra) f 9” 2 , ε f ε cs 
7 ov παραδέχεται." Ei παιδείαν ὑπομένετε, ὡς υἱοῖς 
~ U4 , Uf > lA 

ὑμῖν moospégerace ὃ ϑεός" τίς γάρ ἔστεν υἱός, ὃν OV 

is ΓΙ ΕἸ 3 ct f 

8 παιδεύεε πατήρ; Ei δὲ χωρίς ἐστε παιδείας, ἧς μέ- 

ie te ” , > τὴ 

royoe γεγόνασε πάντες" ἄρα νοϑὸοε ἐστέ, καὶ οὐχ 
€ ἐς 
viol. 


V.5. παρακλήσεως. Some translate this ‘ conso- 
lation;’ others with more judgment, ‘exhortation.’ 
The quotation is from Prov. 8:11, 12, and follows the 
Septuagint in the main, except that our author writes 
vié μου (according to the Hebrew 333), while the Sept. 
omit μου, and that he employs zacdevec in place of 
ἐλέγχεε, which the Seventy use. 

παιδείας. The Hebrew here is 70%. Its sense is 
clearly indicated by its employment in Prov. 22:15, 
where “ΟΣ 030 is ‘the rod of correction,’ and in Prov. 
28: 18, ‘ Withhold not correction from a child’ (79%). 
We must therefore give to παεδεέας here, the transla- 
tion ‘correction,’ ‘chastisement ;’ a sense which it does 
not bear in classic Greek. 

V. 6. παεδεύεε will of course receive here the 
same meaning with its kindred noun above. 

μαστιγοῖ δὲ πάντα υἱόν, κιτ.Δ. The Hebrew here 
is, MEI ἸΞΓῸΝ asi, ‘and as ἃ father the son (whom) 
he loveth. It would seem as though the Septuagint, 
whom the writer here follows, had derived the word 
ax>" by attributing to it a different pointing, from the 
verb 282 (in the Hiphil meaning ‘to cause pain’), in- 
stead of the noun 28. But they give the sense of the 
original with substantial accuracy. 


440 HEBREWS, OHAP. XII. vv. 7, 9. 


V.%. Ei παεδείαν. Some respectable manuscripts, 
and the Syriac, Vulgate, Coptic, Aithiopic, and Arabie 
versions read εἰς here in place of εἰ The general scope 
remains the same, whichever of these readings is adopt- 
ed. If weread εἰς παιδείαν, the verb ὑπομένετε is 
imperative and intransitive, and we have the sense, 
‘Be patient to the correction; God dealeth with you 
as children’ (Of this sense in ὑπομένω we haye an 
example, Matt. 10: 22, ὁ δὲ ὑπομείνας εἰς τέλος.) But 
if we read εὐ, we obtain the rendering given in the 
English version: “If ye endure chastening, God deal- 
eth with you as with sons.” The latter is most prob- 
ably correct; for the correlative expression at the 
beginning of ν. 8, Ed δὲ χωρές, #.r.A. requires it. 


9 Eira τοὺς μὲν τῆς σαρχὸς ἡμῶν πατέρας εἴχομεν 
παιδευτώς, καὶ ἐνετρεπόμείδα οὐ πολλῷ μᾶλλον 
ὑποταγησόμεϑα τῷ πατρὶ τῶν πνευμάτων, καὶ 

10 ζήσομεν; Of μὲν γὰρ πρὸς ὀλίγας ἡμέρας, κατὰ 
τὸ δοκοῦν αὐτοῖς, ἐπαίδενον " ὃ δὲ ἐπὶ τὸ συμι- 
φέρον, εἰς τὸ μεταλαβεῖν τῆς ἀἁγεότητος αὐτοῦ. 

11 Ldoa δὲ παιδεία πρὸς μὲν τὸ παρὸν οὐ δοκεὶ χα- 
ρῶς sivat, ἀλλὰ λύπης ὕστερον δὲ καρπὸν εἰρη- 
vexov τοῖς δὲ αὐτῆς γεγυμνασμένοις ἀποδίδωσε 
δικαιοσύνης. 


V. 9. τοὺς μὲν τῆς σαρχὸς ἡμῶν πατέρας... 
τῷ πατρὶ τῶν πνευμάτων. It is very manifest that 
these expressions indicate our human parents and God. 
They are evidently antithetic, and the interpretation 


ἘΠΕ ον ΗΠ (OHAP.. χα θέ VOD 441 


of the one must influence that of the other. ἡμῶν, 
however, is not necessarily to be understood in the 
second. The fact of its omission 15 an argument against 
supplying it, if the sense is good and natural without 
it. If, with many interpreters, we understand the 
second phrase to designate God as ‘the Creator of 
souls, then the first must mean, ‘the fathers of our 
bodies.’ This antithesis, besides that it does not so 
well suit the context, would rather require σωμάτων 
for σαρκὸς in the first member. But if that first mem- 
ber means, as the best commentators agree, ‘our natu- 
ral (earthly, fathers, flesh and blood, frail and corrupt 
like ourselves, then the latter, τῷ πατρὶ τῶν πνευμά- 
των, designates God as the exalted ‘ Father of spirits, 
i.e. a spirit (not flesh) above all others, and a father 
to our parents and us alike. (This view of the sense is 
illustrated and confirmed by Rom. 9:8, ov τὰ τέκνα 
τῆς σαρκός, ταῦτα τέκνα τοῦ ϑεοῦ" ἀλλὰ τὰ τέκνα 
τῆς ἐπαγγελίας λογίέζεταε εἰς σπέρμα.) This makes 
an easy antithesis; or, we may supply ἡμεῶν, as many 
do, and then interpret ‘the Father of owr spirits,’ with 
reference to our regeneration and adoption, whence 
we are called, in John 1:12, τέκνα ϑεοῦ. But the 
former view is preferable. 

The passage then, rightly interpreted, furnishes no 
proof against ‘the propagation of souls’ (ex traduce), 
none in favour of the creation of them. It only desig- 
nates the exalted Father of spirits, in contradistinction 
to our earthly parents as weak and liable to err. The 
advocates of the theory of the immediate creation of 


442 HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. Vv. 9. 


souls, in opposing their propagation, cite Numb. 16: 
22, 27:16, “O God (the Lord) the God of the spirits 
of all flesh.” Zech. 12:1, “The Lord which stretcheth 
forth the heavens, &c. and formeth the spirit of man 
within him.” Is. 57:16, “I will not contend, &e. for 
the spirit should fail before me, and the souls which I 
have made.” Eccl. 12:7, “Then shall the dust return 
to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return unto 
God who gave it.” But let it be remembered that 
the soul was more honourable in its creation than the 
body, and is so in its nature, as the sentient, moral, 
immortal principle in man. It is therefore. often taken 
for the whole man, as in Is. 57:16. So the heart is 
sometimes taken. Compare Ps. 38:15, “He fashion- 
eth their hearts alike” (Heb. 772. Rosenmiiller ob- 
serves, ‘ pariter, nullo excepto’). The original creation 
of the soul is furthermore often included in enumera- 
tions of the mighty works of God, designed to heighten 
our ideas of his majesty, and introductory to some 
solemn communication. Thus the passage cited from 
Zech. 12:1 is to be explained. Compare with it Ps. 
94:9, “He that planted the ear, shall not he hear? 
He that formed the eye, shall not he see?” ἄρ. Is. 
42:5, “Thus saith God the Lord, He that created the 
heavens... He that spread forth the earth... He 
that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit 
to them that walk therein,” &e. And since the same 
divine power which created, is ever active to preserve 
being, and keep natural laws in force, we see such pas- 
sages as those from Numb. 16:22, 27:16. (Zech. 


HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. Vv. 10, 11. 4438 


12:11is more probably a historic present.) In Jer. 
32:27 God says, “ Behold, I am the Lord, the God of 
all flesh ; is any thing too hard for me?” &. 1:5, 
“ Before I formed thee im the belly 1 knew thee.” As 
to Eccl. 12:7, the terms plainly refer to the original 
creation; and if the passage teaches that every spirit 
is directly from God, it equally teaches that every 
body is taken directly from the ground. Gen. 2:1, 2 
hardly proves any thing against the theory of creation. 
The genus man, like others, was then made, and the 
law of reproductive succession established: what that 
law is, is the question. Of more weight is Gen. 5: ὃ, 
Adam ‘begat (a son) in his own likeness after his 
image.’ This image can hardly be confined to the 
physical man, but must embrace the mental and 
moral. But moral corruption can be affirmed only 
of the soul. Those who wish to pursue this subject 
farther, are referred to Turretin. Instit. Theolog. 
Elenck Vol. 1. Locus Quintus, Quest. XII. Vu- 
ginia Literary and Evang. Magazine, Vol. IV. pp. 
285-292. 

καὶ ζήσομεν; Here καὶ connects a consequence: 
‘Shall we not much rather be in subjection to the 
Father of spirits so as to live?” See Winer’s Id. New 
Test. §57. 2. (ὁ), p. 848. 

V. 10. κατὰ τὸ δοκοῦν, ‘According to their 
judging” It is implied that this was with imperfec- 
tion, sometimes with passion and injustice. 

V.11. Μᾶσα δὲ παιδεία... οὐ δοκεῖ. This is a 
Hebraism for οὐδεμέα παιδεία δοκεῖ. οὐ πᾶσα, κ-τ.λ. 


444 HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. Vv. ἅς 


would signify a different thing: ‘ Not every correction 
seemeth joyful ;’ implying that some corrections did. 

καρπὸν εἰρηνεκόν. We may with equal propriety 
render this phrase, ‘healthful, ‘salutary fruit, or 
‘happy,’ ‘blessed’ The» phrase is eminently appropri- 
ate, for afflictions are agitating and affect the soul as 
a storm; while their sanctified results are marked by 
acalm and sweetness in pleasing contrast with the 
confusion. \ 

καρπὸν δωεαεοσύνης. This may be explained as a 
genitive of apposition, or of explication. In the one 
case, the peaceable fruit is righteousness ; in the other, 
it is of an upright character. See Winer’s Id. New 
Test. 848. 2, p. 284. 


CHAPTER XII. 12—29. 


ANALYSIS. 


Tue Apostle takes occasion, from the considera- 
tions just advanced, to encourage his readers in their 
Christian life, vv. 12, 18, adding several appropriate 
exhortations and cautions, vv. 14-17. He still has in 
view the confirmation of his readers, and enforces 
(γὰρ) his exhortations by an animated and sublime 
contrast of the awful terrors of the old dispensation 
on the one hand, betokening its own insufliciency to 
clothe in garments of grace the God of justice, vv. 18— 
21; and on the other, the glorious and merciful char- 
acter of the new, uniting in one family believers on 
earth to the angels and saints in heaven, to a recon- 
ciled God and to Jesus, whose mediation and atoning 
blood secured this wonderful triumph of grace, vy. 
22-24. He again exhorts them not to reject Christ, 
admonishing them of the far greater destruction which 
awaited those who did so, than overtook those who re- 
fused to hear Moses of old; and reminding them that 
He whose voice caused the earth to tremble at the set- 
ting up of the old dispensation, would, according to 
the prophet, set up another, better and enduring for- 
ever, a8 intimated by the terms and imagery of the 
prediction, vv. 25-27. He concludes by calling upon 


446 CHAP. XII.—ANALYSIS. 


them therefore again, as they lived under such a 
dispensation, to have grace by which to serve God 
acceptably ; for God was still, to his enemies, a con- 
suming fire, vv. 28, 29. 


HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. v. 12. 447 


4 


COMMENTARY. 


12 Ζεωὸ τὰς παρειμένας χεῖρας καὶ τὰ παραλελυμένα 

18 γόνατα ἀνορϑωσατε. καὶ τροχεὰς ὀρϑὰς ποιή- 
σατε τοῖς ποσὶν ὑμῶν, ἵνα μὴ τὸ χωλὸν ἐχτραπῇ, 

14 ἐαϑὴ δὲ μᾶλλον. Εἰρήνην διώκετε μετὰ πάντων, 
καὶ τὸν ἁγεασμόν, οὗ χωρὶς οὐδεὶς ὄψεταε τὸν κύ- 

15 ρέον᾿ ἐπισκοποῦντες, μή τες ὑστερῶν ἀπὸ τῆς χά- 
ρέτος τοῦ ϑεοῦ" μή τες ῥίζα πεκρέας ἄνω φύουσα 

16 ἐνοχλῇ, καὶ Ove ταύτης μεανϑῶσε πολλοί" μή τες 
πόρνος, ἢ βέβηλος ὡς Ἠσαῦ, ὃς ἀντὲ βρώσεως μεᾶς 

17 ἀπέδοτο τὰ πρωτοτόχεα αὑτοῦ" ἴστε γάρ, ὅτε 
καὶ μετέπειτα ϑέλων κληρονομῆσαι τὴν εὐλογίαν, 
ἀπεδοκεμάσϑη" μετανοίας γὰρ τόπον οὐχ εὗρε, 
καίπερ μετὰ δακρύων ἐκζητήσας αὐτήν. 


V.12. ἀνορϑώσατε. The literal meaning of this 
verb is ‘straighten up.’ The English version renders 
it “lift up;” asense which applies better to its first 
object, ‘hands,’ than its second, ‘knees.’ The words 
of the Apostle seem to contain an evident allusion to 
Is. 35: 3, “Strengthen ye the weak hands, and confirm 
the feeble knees,” of which the Hebrew is 0°) ὙΠ 
maAX Niwa oan mip}, and the Septuagint version, 
ἰσχύσατε χεῖρες ἀνεέμεναε, καὶ γονατὰ παραλελυμένα. 
The Septuagint also use ὠνορϑόω for 72 and for spr. 
Its meaning here is, ‘to strengthen, ‘confirm.’ The 
sense of God’s favour sustains us when sinking under 
discouragements and trials. 420, ‘therefore’ (viz. be- 


448 HEBREWS, OHAP. XII. v. 18. 


cause those trials yield afterwards the peaceable fruit 
of righteousness), ‘strengthen the relaxed hands and 
the paralyzed knees.” ‘The toils of the palestra are 
still in view. 

V. 13. τροχεὰς ὀρϑάς. This expressive figure 
may have been borrowed from Prov. 4: 26, &c., ὀρθὰς - 
τροχεὰς ποιεῖ σοῖς MOOL... τὰς ὅδους κατεύϑυνε" μὴ 
ἐχκλενῆς εἰς τὰ δέξεα μηδὲ εἰς τὰ ὠρεστέρα, ἀπόστρε- 
wov δὲ σὸν πόδα ἀπὸ ὅδου κακῆς. Calvin remarks on 
these words of our Epistle, “Nunc secundum adjungit, 
nempe ut prudenter ambulemus, ac teneamus rectum 
cursum.” ‘The Apostle’s meaning evidently is, ‘ Pursue 
the path of duty without swerving through fear, love 
of ease, worldly gain, or any other cause.’ 

χωλόν. The sense of the Apostle is manifestly, 
from the context, this: ‘Lest the maimed member 
(whether knee or any other) be turned aside from 
that straight road of duty; and thus, becoming en- 
tangled in inextricable difficulties in devious paths, be- 
come hopelessly crippled. On the contrary, the effort 
should be to secure its restoration by diligently follow- 
ing the healthful road of rectitude.’ Stripped of the 
figure, this teaches that the spiritual weakness which 
yields to trial is increased into a hopeless impotence 
by so yielding, but is healed by a hearty and manful 
resistance to temptation. The form of the expression 
in 1 Kings 18:21 may illustrate the Apostle’s lan- 
guage here: “How long halt ye between two opin- 
ions?” This the Septuagint have rendered, ἕως πότε 


~ ~ > f ~ / ‘ 
ὑμεῖς yodurveire ἐπὶ ὠμφοτέραες ταῖς ἰγνύαες : appa 


HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. vv. 14, 15. 449 


rently mistaking 08907 for ‘limbs’ instead of ‘ partes, 
‘ alternatives.’ : 

ἐκτραπῇ. Some translate this ‘be strained, dislo- 
cated,’ but without the authority of usage, and without 
necessity. The spiritually halting ‘turn aside’ when 
others make for them rough and crooked ways; the 
fearless and faithful course of others confirms and saves 
them. 

V. 14. χαὶ τὸν ἁγιασμόν. This word every 
where in the New Test. signifies ‘sanctification,’ ‘ holi- 
ness. In 1 Cor 1:30 it is used by metonymy for the 
author of sanctification. 

V.15. ὑστερῶν. To this clause, τὴς ὑστερῶν, as 
well as the two similar following ones, μή τὲς 6/c and 
μή τίς πόρνος, the substantive verb ἢ must be Sup- 
pled. It should be rendered, ‘lest any one fail of, 
‘come short of ;’ a sense which was seen in 4: 1 above. 
Some render it to ‘fail from,’ ‘apostatize from.’ But 
this is ‘a rare and doubtful sense of the word, of which 
no instance occurs in the New Test. although one is 
found in the Septuagint, Ecclus. 7:34, μὴ ὑστερεῖ ἀπὸ 
κλαιόντων, καὶ μετὰ πενϑοῦντων πένϑησον, “ Desert 
not those that weep,” &e. 

ἀπὸ τῆς χάρετος, κιτ.ι}. Some understand by this, 
‘the Christian religion or dispensation” If the sense 
of ‘deserting’ were given to ὑστερῶν, this meaning 
would be intelligible ; but we would scarcely speak of 
one’s coming short of the Christian dispensation, in 
such a connexion as this. It is better to understand 
by it ‘the grace of God,’ sanctifying and saving the 

29 


450 HEBREWS, OHAP. XII. v. 16. 


soul. Of attaining unto, or coming short of, that 
grace, one would naturally speak. 

τες ῥίζα πεκρέας. This phrase seems to be intend- 
ed to describe generally ‘any evil-doer” and worker 
of mischief. But there is a manifest allusion to Deut. 
29:17, ped) Ok Mb Dy 22 τὸ 15; Septuagint 29: 
18, μή τες ἐστὴὲν ἐν ὑμῖν bila ἄνω φύουσα ἐν χόλῃ καὶ 
atxoia. ‘These words most probably describe the idol- 
aters just spoken of; and therefore the Apostle may 
here principally mean men who, destitute of the grace 
of God, apostatize from the faith, and corrupt others. 

ἐνοχλῇ. Some critics conjecture, against the au- 
thority ‘of the manuscripts and versions, that this 
should be read ἐν yody. The original and the Sept. 
version just quoted may be compared. But even in 
this quotation seven manuscripts of the Septuagint, in- 
cluding the Alexandrine, read ἐγοχλῇ instead of ἐν 
χόλῃ. But the Apostle does not quote the Septuagint, 
and therefore its reading does not determine ours here. 
There need be no reluctance to admit ἐγοχλῇ as a 
verb, signifying ‘to involve in tumult,’ ‘to trouble,’ for 
though it does not occur elsewhere in the New Test. 
there is both Septuagint and classic usage for it. 

V.16. πόρνος. Many understand by this word, 
the spiritual fornication of idolatry, regarding it as an — 
imitation of the Hebrew usage. While that figurative 
sense is indisputable in the Hebrew (consult Gesen. 
Heb. Lex. art. 727), the words πόρνος, πόρνη, nowhere 
have this sense in the New Test. In Revelation, after 
the manner of the prophets, πόρνη and πορνεία are 80 


HEBREWS, CHAP. στ, Ve 17. 451 


used. Other interpreters render πόρνος here more 
generally, but still figuratively, * profligates,’ ‘wicked 
sensualists. For this sense there seems to be some 
countenance in the use of Moyot καὶ μοιχαλέδες, in 
James 4:4, and less in Tevece πονηρὰ καὶ μοεχαλές, m 
Matt. 12:39, 16:4, Mark 8:38. But there seems to 
be no objection to understanding it literally, as it must 
be undoubtedly understood in 18:4 below. There is 
every reason to suppose, from Gen. 26:34, 35, and 28: 
8, 9, that this, as well as profane unbelief, was among 
the sins of Esau; or else, there is no valid objection to 
reading the passage, μή τές πόρνος, ἢ βέβηλος ac 
Ἠσαῦ, so as to make the words we Ἡσαῦ attributive 
only to the latter. 

βέβηλος is opposed in the Sept. to ἅγεος for the 
Hebrew ὅπ. Here, as the context defines, it signifies 
a profane person who lightly esteems sacred things, 
and prefers earthly to spiritual blessings. Esau’s sin 
is detailed in the well-known narrative of Gen. 25: 
32-384. 

βρώσεως. This word means literally, the ‘act of 
eating,’ and thence, ‘a meal.’ Thus, in Gen. 25: 34, 
we read that Esau, for a single meal of bread and pot- 
tage, exchanged his birthright. <A little delay and 
patience might have satisfied his hunger innocently at 
his mother’s tent; so that, however keen it might 
have been, his impatient act indicated an exceedingly 
contemptuous estimate of these privileges. 

V.17. μετανοίας τόπον. This passage has been 
supposed to involve peculiar difficulty, because it seems, 


452 HEBREWS, OHAP. XII. v. 17. 


at the first glance, to contradict all the precious prom- 
ises of certain pardon to the true penitent, by present- 
ing one case in which such repentance was rejected. 
The difficulty is increased, it is supposed, by the em- 
ployment of μετανοίας, the word which uniformly 
means ‘true, saving repentance’ in the New Test.; 
and not μεταμέλεεας, the common word for ‘carnal 
regret. Many and the best modern commentators 
take μετανοίας here in the primitive and classic sense 
of ‘a change of mind,’ and suppose the words to apply 
to Isaac. It was Isaac’s change of mind (as to the 
blessing) for which Esau could find no place. This 
view is strongly favoured by the history of the case. 
These commentators understand αὐτὴν as referring to 
μετανοίας: compare Gen. 27: 30-40, and especially 
vy. 38-88. It is there seen that, in fact, the thing 
sought by Esau with tears was a change of purpose in 
Isaac, as to the patriarchal blessing pronounced on Ja- 
cob. The Apostle refers to the fact as notorious, Tore 
γάρ. But there is nowhere any indication that Esau 
sought to repair the siz of his own contemptuous and 
impious act by evangelical repentance. Other com- 
mentators, among whom is Calvin, refer μετανοίας 
τόπον to Esau, and αὐτὴν to εὐλογίαν; a view which 
avoids the difficulty stated in the outset; for Esan is 
not represented as seeking a true repentance and being 
rejected, but only as seeking a selfish advantage; and 
it is implied that the reason he found no place for 
repentance was, that he did not truly seek it. But 
both these interpretations take μετανοίας out of the 


HEBREWS, CHAP. xIt. v. 17 453 


sense which, we believe, both it and the verb wercevoé 
every where sustain in the New Test. even in Luke 17: 
ὃ, 4, viz. ‘true repentance unto life’ But it does not 
seem to us impossible to give this sense to wercvolac, 
whether we adopt the interpretation first mentioned, 
or that of Calvin. If we refer μετανοίας to Isaac, it 
is not unreasonable to suppose that the Apostle used 
it in its New Test. sense; for Isaac being a true man 
of God, the only condition on which he would reverse 
his action in the matter would be such an apprehen- 
sion of his error, as would be accompanied with some 
degree of godly sorrow in his pious mind. But that 
could not be; because Isaac felt that he had done 
right (Gen. 27:33), being guided by inspiration. But 
if we refer μετανοίας to Esau, in the sense of true re- - 
pentance, it would not teach that Esau truly repented 
of his error. It would only state that he found re- 
pentance was too late, and therefore had no place, or 
was of no avail. So do they, who say too late, “ Lord, 
Lord, open unto us.” Compare Hebr. 6: 4-6. The 
modern interpretation is preferable. 


18 Οὐ yao προςεληλύϑατε ψηλαφωμένῳ Oost, καὶ 
κεκαυμένῳ πυρέ, καὶ γνόφῳ καὶ σκότῳ καὶ ϑυέλ- 
19 Ay, xut σάλπιγγος ἤχῳ καὶ φωνῇ ῥημάτων, ἧς Ob 
ἀκούσαντες παρῃτήσαντο, μὴ προςτεϑῆναε αὐτοῖς 
20 λόγον" (οὐκ ἔφερον γὰρ τὸ διαστελλόμενον “κἀν 
ϑηρίον ϑίγῃ τοῦ ὄρους, λεϑοβοληϑήσεται" [ἢ βο- 


454 HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. Vv. 18, 19. 


/ . 3 
21 Aide xararogsvInosrac| καὶ --- οὕτω φοβερὸν ἦν 
Ἂ , 902k “ὦ τ ἐς Ὁ ΄ > 
τὸ φανταζόμενον — Mavons simey “ ἔκφοβος shut 
x » lf ” 
22 καὶ évreouos*”) ἀλλὰ προςεληλύϑατε Σεὼν ὄρεε, 
Ἀ f 4 ~ ~ .« Ὕ 
καὶ mohse ϑεοῦ ζῶντος, Ἱερουσαλὴκε ἐπουρανέῳ, 
‘ / > , 
23 καὶ μυρεώσεν, ἀγγέλων πανηγύρει, καὶ ἐκκλησίᾳ 
΄ ’ ’ ~ > 
TOWTOTOXMY ἕν οὐρανοῖς ἀπογεγραμμένων, καὶ 
~ ~ , 
κριτῇ, ϑεῷ πάντων, καὶ πνεύμασε δικαίων TETE- 
Γ \ a Ud , > ~ κ 
24 λεεωμένων, καὶ διωϑήκης νέας μεσίτῃ, Ἰησοῦ, καὶ 
αἵματε ῥαντισμοῦ, κρείττονα λαλοῦντε παρὰ τὸν 


“4Δ8ελ. 


V. 18. ψηλαφωμένῳ. This is the word of the 
Sept. for wa, while they use ¢arouae for 539. In 
Exod. 19:12, 13, it is said that the mountain must 
not be touched. The Apostle here would describe it 
as a tangible (material) mountain, opposed_to Mount 
Zion invisible, called in ν. 22, ἐπουρανίου. Others ren- 
der it ‘tacto a Deo? See Bretschneider’s Lex. New Test. 

χκεκαυ μένῳ. Some construe this participle with ogec 
(‘the mountain tangible and burning with fire,’ &c.). 
Compare Exod. 19: 18, Deut. 4:11, 22“ ΝΞ 73 957} 
SEND) PY Tn ovaw; Sept. (καὶ προςῆλϑετε καὶ ἔστητε 
ὑπό TO ὄρος) καὶ τὸ ὄρος ἐκαίετο πυρὶ ἕως τοῦ οὐρα- 
vou, σκότος, γνόφος, ϑυέλλα. Others construe xsxav- 
μένῳ with πυρὶ (‘ye have not come to the tangible 
mountain, and to the fire that burned, &c.). The 
structure of the sentence strongly favours the latter 
construction. 

V.19. παρῃτήσαντο. This may be rendered cor- 
rectly, though inelegantly, ‘they begged off from.’ 
The fact alluded to is stated in Exod. 20:19. 


HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. Vv. 20-22. 455 


V. 20. The words 7 βολέδε κατατοξευϑήσεταε are 
wanting in nearly all the manuscripts, and in all those 
of best authority, as well as in most of the old versions 
and early editions. They are consequently expunged 
by all the critical editors. They seem to have been 
introduced in imitation of Exod. 19: 13. 

V.21. Moavone εἶπεν ἔχφοβός sius, xc... In 
the history in Exod. ch. 19, it is not explicitly stated 
that Moses uttered these words, or that he trembled. 
In 19:19 it is said, “ Moses spake,” and his words are 
not recorded ; and as it was just at this juncture that 
the people were all trembling at the displays of divine 
majesty, it is every way probable that these were the 
words he uttered. But be this as it may, ‘all the peo- 
ple in the camp trembled;’ it is natural that Moses 
should, and the Apostle asserts, as his readers believed, 
that he did. There is no ground to suppose the con- 
trary. In Deut. 9:19 we find him expressing a simi- 
lar fear of the divine wrath, on the occasion of Israel’s 
sin with the calf. 

V. 22. Σιὼν ogee. This is the spiritual Mount 
Zion, the heavenly Jerusalem, where God is king of 
grace. We understand this spiritual Zion, in this 
place, to signify heaven, the abode of Christ and the 
redeemed, as well as in the various passages, Hebr. 11: 
10, 14-16, 18:14, Gal. 4:24 to end, Rev. 3:12, 21: 
2, 10, where ‘a city that hath foundations, ‘a contin- 
uing city, ‘Jerusalem which is above,’ ‘new Jerusa- 
lem, ‘holy Jerusalem,’ is spoken of. But in what 
sense have we, believers on earth, come to this city of 


456 HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. Vv. 28. 


the living God as yet? The new dispensation, often 
called a kingdom, either of God, of heaven, or of 
Christ, is here viewed as extending through time into 
eternity, and embracing saints on earth and angels and 
saints in heaven, in one common family, under one 
common head. (See v. 28 below, and the Lexicons of 
the New Test. on the word ϑασελεῖα.) Becoming 
members of Christ’s church, we are united to that 
blessed family whose home and seat are in heaven. 
The old dispensation is represented throughout the 
. Epistle as having no such efficacy. This is a part of 
that inferiority asserted of it in 11: 40. 

V. 23. πανηγύρει. Almost all interpreters put 
this word in apposition with μυρεώσεν, and in regimen 
with ἀγγέλων. This is strongly favoured by the reg- 
ular structure of the sentence. This is the word em- 
ployed in the Septuagint for 471 and 73x27. It is sup- 
posed to be derived from πᾶς and ὠγορώ, Mol. ἀγυρίς. 

πρωτοτόχων. ‘This is most probably a figurative 
designation of ancient and eminent saints, patriarchs, 
prophets, and possibly apostles. While they seem to 
be included in πνεύμασε δικαίων τετελεεω μένων, they 
are also distinguished from them as more excellent. 

ἀπογεγραμμένων ἐν οὐρανοῖς. The meaning of 
the participle is clear from its use in Luke 2:1, 3, 5, 
as being of ‘those enrolled, ‘written in a list’ The 
origin of the phrase is perhaps to be sought in Ps. 69: 
28, “Let them be blotted out of the book of the liv- 
ing, and not be written with the righteous,” 0° 759. 
Similar expressions may be found in Luke 10 : 20, Phil. 





HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. v. 24. 457 


4:8, Rev. 3:5, 13:8. They evidently signify those 
who are recognized by God as among his redeemed ones, 

καὶ κριτῇ ϑεῷ πάντων. Some place a comma after 
κρετῇ, construing πάντων with ϑεῷ; but the sense is 
harder, and the structure of the sentence does not re- 
quire it. 

V. 24. κρείττονα. Most manuscripts, versions, 
early editions, and some Fathers, read κρεῖττον, which 
is consequently preferred by many critics. The differ- 
ence in sense is unimportant, merely changing the plu- 
ral for the singular. 

τὸν "AGed. A few authorities give ro “4@ed, a 
reading which would require us to supply aiua. But 
the correction is not sufficiently authorized. Literally, 
the passage means, ‘the blood of sprinkling that speak- 
eth better things than Abel’ It seems somewhat 
doubtful whether Abel is to be understood as speaking 
by the blood of the victims which he offered, or by his 
own. Most commentators understand the latter, and 
suppose a reference to Gen. 4:10. According to their 
view, the Apostle contrasts the blood of Christ which 
procures pardon, with that of Abel which cried from 
the ground for vengeance. Some degree of support is 
given to this interpretation by the expression λαλοῦντε, 
which would be very naturally explained as an allu- 
sion to the words ‘crieth from the ground,’ applied to 
Abel’s blood in Gen. 4:10, but would seem more con- 
strained when applied to the truth represented by his 
bloody sacrifices. But in favour of the former inter- 
pretation is the whole scope of the Epistle, which is a 


458 HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. v. 24. 


great contrast between the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice 
and mediation, and that of the animal sacrifices of 
times before Christ. Let the reader recall such pas- 
sages as 9:13, 14, 10:1-10, and 11:4, above. The 
scope of the passage in which this sentence occurs 
argues the same; for it obviously compares the two 
dispensations, the sacrifice and dispensation of Christ, 
with the typical ones that preceded it, and not with 
the guilty bloodshed of a murder. And finally, when 
the Apostle has so distinctly referred in 11:4 to 
Abel’s sacrifices, it is far most natural to understand 
an allusion here to what was said of him there. There 
is, indeed, no other plausible way to account for the 
introduction of his name just here. Abel’s bloody 
offering of animals, the first distinctly stated instance 
of a typical sacrifice in sacred history, is mentioned in 
11:4, and alluded to here, as the general representa- 
tive of all such sacrifices offered by believers from 
Abel to Christ. The meaning of the sentence, then, 
is this: New Test. believers have come to a blood 
that declares better results than the typical blood of 
Old Test. sacrifices. Christ’s blood declares a complete 
redemption ; the latter only foreshadowed it as future. 
Christ’s takes away all guilt; the latter only made the 
comers thereunto ceremonially clean. 


r 4 ‘ - 
25 Βλέπετε, μὴ παρεμτησησϑὲ τὸν λαλοῦντα. Ei 
. Ὕ - 2 » \ , ~ ~ 
yao ἐχεῖνοι οὐκ ἔφυγον, τὸν ἐπὶ [τῆς] γῆς παραε- 
ld , ~ ~F ~ 
τησώμενοι χρηματίζοντα, πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἡμεῖς οἱ 


HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. vv. 25, 26. 488 


26 τὸν ax οὐρανῶν ἀποστρεφόμενοι. Ov ἡ φωνὴ 
τὴν γῆν ἐσάλευσε tore’ νῦν δὲ ἐπήγγελταε, λέ- 
you: “ἔτε ἅπαξ ἐγὼ σεέω οὐ μόνον τὴν γῆν, ἀλλὰ 

27 καὶ τὸν οὐρανόν." Τὸ δὲ “ ἔτε ἅπαξ" δηλοῖ τῶν 
σαλενομένων τὴν μετάϑεσεν, ὡς πεποιημένων, ἵνα 

28 μείνῃ ta μὴ σαλευόμενα. Ato βασιλείαν ἀσά- 
λευτον παραλαμβάνοντες, ἔχωμεν χάριν, δὲ ἧς 
λατρεύωμεν εὐαρέστως τῷ ϑεῷ μετὰ αἰδοῦς καὶ 

29 εὐλαβείας. Καὶ γὰρ ὁ ϑεὸς ἡμῶν πῦρ κατανα- 
λέσκον. 


V.25. τὸν λαλοῦντα. This is Christ, as the im- 
mediate context both before and after shows, though 
many interpreters make it God the Father. The con- 
trast is evidently between Moses and Christ, the two 
internuntit, vonuariloyras, of the two dispensations. 
Thus in v. 24, ‘ we have come to δεχϑήκης νέας μεσέτῃ, 
Ἰησοῦ; whose blood speaks, or rather, who speaks by 
‘his blood. It is Moses who is upon and of the earth 
(τὸν ἐπὶ γῆς χρηματίζοντα); Christ is from heaven, 
and divine, and speaks from heaven (τὸν ἀπ᾽ οὐρανῶν). 
Our version does not well express the precise antithe- 
sis of the original. See the contrast between the di- 
vine prophet and earthly ones stated in John 3: 31. 

V. 26. ‘Ov ἡ φονή. The interpretation which we 
have given of the preceding verse requires us to refer 
ov to Christ, τὸν ax οὐρανῶν. 

τότε, νῦν δὲ ἐπήγγελταε, x.r.A. There seems to be 
here a reference to Haggai 2:6. The Sept. well ren- 
der it, ἔτε ἅπαξ ἐγὼ σείσω τὸν οὐρανόν, καὶ τὴν γῆν, 


καὶ τὴν ϑάλασσαν καὶ τὴν ξηρών, κιτ.. By τότε, the 


460 HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. Vv. 21. 


author refers to the setting up of the old dispensation’ 
through the ministry of Moses. The shaking of the 
earth caused by the divine voice was undoubtedly 
that recorded in Exod. 19:18, “and the whole mount 
quaked greatly.” We learn, thus, that the second 
person of the Trinity, the Angel of the covenant, was 
the agent in this awful revelation of the law. The 
Apostle, by using the perfect tense, νῦν δὲ ἐπήγγελταε, 
applies this prophecy of Haggai to the setting up of 
the new dispensation ; and so the whole context from 
which it is quoted shows it was meant. Haggai 2: 7, 
“The desire of all nations shall come.” V.9, “The 
glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the 
former, saith the Lord of hosts, and in this place will 
I give peace.” The Apostle quotes the sense, not the 
terms literally, so arranging words and adding οὐ 
μόνον... ἀλλώ, as to point out distinctly the greater 
shaking predicted. 

V.2%. Τὸ δέ, ἔτε ἅπαξ, x.r.4. He now proceeds 
to interpret the prophecy: “The expression, ‘ yet once 
again,’ &e. (these words standing for the whole sen- 
tence of which they are the beginning), signifies the 
change of the things shaken,” &c. The Apostle un- 
derstands the imagery as borrowed from the circum- 
stances which attended the setting up of the first dis- 
pensation. As the Saviour then shook the sacred 
mountain Sinai literally, so He would figuratively 
shake or convulse the religious and civil state of the 
whole world, in setting up the new dispensation. The 
fact that He would come ‘once again’ to set up 





HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. v. 97. 461 


another, was, from the nature of the case, an indication 
of the abrogation of the first. The amplification in 
the terms describing his second coming, shows that a 
greater dispensation was intended. That He comes 
but once more, indicates that this greater dispensation 
is the last, and will endure (ἵνα μείνῃ τὰ μὴ σαλευό- 
wevee) till the consummation of all earthly things. 

τῶν ocdsvousvay. These words, on our interpre- 
tation, must be restricted to the institutions of the old 
dispensation, which are opposed to τὼ μὴ σαλευόμενα, 
the permanent institutions of the new. 
ὡς πεποιημένων. But were the Mosaic institutions 
‘made, ‘created, im any sense in which those of the 
New Test. were not? There are three interpretations 
allowable, either one of which explains this phrase 
consistently with our view. We may take it as synony- 
mous with yvecgoroinra, in the sense of ‘ caduca, ‘ evan- 
escent’ (because, usually, what man makes perishes 
like him). And this is confirmed by Hebr. 8:2, 9: 
11, 28, 24, where the “σκηνὴ ἀληϑενή, which the 
Lord pitched and not man,” ov χειροποίητος (the οὐ 
Ketoonointa aya), are contrasted with the earthly 
one of human construction, and the heavenly antitypes 
with shadows. Or we may understand our author as 
saying that the prophecy indicates a change of the 
Mosaic institutions similar to the passing away of cre- 
ated things; thus not construing πεποιημένων with 
τῶν σαλευομένων, but comparing with the final catas- 
trophe. Or we may construe μείνῃ actively, and re- 
move the comma before it, so as to read thus: ‘as 


462 HEBREWS, OHAP. XII. v. 28. 


made in order to await those (institutions) that are 
not shaken.’ Compare 9:9, 10 above, “He taketh 
away the first that he may establish the second.” 

V.28. βασιλείαν. This ‘kingdom’ is evidently 
the dispensation of Christ. This is the sense given by 
the best New Test. Lexicons, to the phrase βασελεῖα 
τοῦ ϑεοῦ, Χριστοῦ, οὐρανῶν, and its propriety here is 
indicated by the adjective ἀσάλευτον, and the whole 
context. If our interpretation of the two preceding 
verses was correct, that thing contrasted with the 
evanescent Mosaic institutions, that thing which ‘is 
not to be moved,’ must be the New Test. dispensation. 
The encouraging exhortation introduced by 420 un- 
doubtedly proceeds upon all the facts stated from v. 
22 onward. The sum of these is, that the believer 
now approaches, unites himself to, the Church of the 
new dispensation, with its divine Mediator, and its 
universal membership of saints on earth and in heaven. 
This then is the kingdom, the reception of which is 
the ground of the encouragement. 

ἔχωμεν χάρεν. ‘This phrase, when accompanied 
with the dative of the person, is often used like the 
Latin habere gratias, in the sense of ‘ giving thanks to’ 
any one. This is its sense, for instance, in 1 Tim. 1: 
12, yao ἔχω τῷ ἐνδυναμωσαντέ μὲ Χριστῷ, and in 
Luke 17:9, 2 Tim.1:38. But here the dative is want- 
ing, and the context demands that we shall give it its 
literal sense, ‘Let us have grace.’ Examples are not 
wanting to authorize this. See 2 Cor. 1:15, and espe- 
cially Acts 2:47, Hebr. 4:16. 





Cra Cia XT: 


ANALYSIS. 


Tue Apostle urges various practical exhortations, 
vv. 1-19, concluding with a prayer for the perfection 
of his readers, and a doxology, vv. 20, 21. He then 
entreats a favourable reception for his Epistle, promises 
conditionally a visit, sends salutations, and closes with 
the usual benediction, vv. 22-25. 

Some of the exhortations have a very intimate con- 
nexion with the object of the Epistle. So vy. 7-15. 
Compare also the prayer and doxology. 


464 HEBREWS, CHAP. XIII. VV. 2, 8. 


COMMENTARY. 


XU. 1,2. Ἡ φιλαδελφία μενέτω. Τῆς φελοξενίας 
μὴ ἐπελανϑάνεσίε" διὰ ταύτης γὰρ ἔλαϑόν τενες 

3 ξενέσαντες ἀγγέλους. Μεμνήσκχεσϑε τῶν δεσμέων, 
ὡς συνδεδεμένοι" τῶν κακουχου μένων, ὡς καὶ αὐ- 

4 τοὶ ὄντες ὃν σώματε. Τέμεος ὁ γώμος ἐν πᾶσε, καὶ 
ἡ κοίτη ὠμέαντος" πόρνους δὲ καὶ μοιχοὺς κρινεῖ ὃ 

5 ϑεός. ᾿Αφιλώργυρος ὃ τρόπος᾽ ἀρκούμενοι τοῖς 
παροῦσεν. Αὐτὸς γὰρ εἰρηκεν" “Οὐ μή σε avo, 

6 οὐδ᾽ οὐ μή σε ἐγκαταλέπω"" ὥςτε ϑαῤῥοῦντας 
ἡμᾶς λέγε, “ Κύρεος ἐμοὶ βοηϑός, καὶ οὐ φοβη- 
ϑησομαε" τί ποιήσεε μος ἄνϑρωπος ;” 

V.2. ξενίσαντες ἀγγέλους. The allusion here is 
doubtless to Gen 18:2, &. and 19:1, where Abra- 
ham and Lot were rewarded by the presence of heay- 
enly visitors for their pious hospitality, given, as they 
at first supposed, to wayfarers. Are Christians to ex- 
pect a similar honour now, for their practice of hospi- 
tality? By no means; but we have a true motive for 
the duty in the fact that God did once honour it in so 
glorious a way. 

V. 3. ὡς συνδεδεμένοι. This is a forcible descrip- 
tion of sympathy. We are to feel the pains of those 
who are bound for Christ, as though we shared their 
bonds. We are to place ourselves, by a lively sympa- 
thy, in their condition. 


HEBREWS, CHAP. XIII. v. 4. 465 


ὡς καὶ αὐτοὶ ὄντες ἐν σώματε. We must remem- 
ber that, being still mortal, we are liable to every 
hardship our brethren suffer. It is natural that our 
sympathy should be made more lively by our sense of 
exposure to the same ills. 

V.4. Tiucoc 6 γάμος. Some supply here ἔστε, 
as our English version; and some, as the Popish ex- 
positors, who wish to evade the evidence against their 
doctrine of celibacy, understand éorw. The fact that 
the previous and subsequent sentences are exhorta- 
tions, in the imperative mode, favours the latter ; but 
the succeeding clause (xgcvez) favours the former. 
Calvin well says, “ Ego vero potius sentio, Apostolum 
hie conjugium scortationi, tanquam remedium morbo, 
opponere:” ‘Fornicators and adulterers God will 
judge ; but there is no excuse for these crimes, for He 
hath allowed to all men an honourable, lawful enjoy- 
ment of marriage.’ But if the clause be read as a 
command, ‘let marriage be honourable (chaste) in all,’ 
it is in truth equally unfavourable to him who asserts 
the superior sanctity of celibacy. For it is still im- 
plied that marriage may be honourable in all; and 
there is no reason for affixing a limitation to the ad- 
jective ‘all, contrary to the scope of the passage, and 
the general strain of the Scriptures. Calvin: “Quum 
dicit in omnibus, intelligo nullum esse ordinem qui a 
conjugio prohibeatur.”. We have no need to depend 
on this place alone. In 1 Tim. 4:3 it is expressly said 
that one of the errors of the great apostacy would be 
‘forbidding to marry,’ 

30 


466 HEBREWS, CHAP. XIII. vv. 5-1. 


V.5. «Αὐτὸς γὰρ εἴρηκεν. THe (God) hath said, 
The same quotation is made by Philo as a λόγεον τοῦ 
ϑεοῦ. The words do not exactly occur in the Old 
Test. but seem to be taken from such passages as 
Deut. 31:6, “ He will not fail thee nor forsake thee ;” 
Josh. 1:5, 1 Chron. 28:20, Ps. 37: 25, 28, Isaiah 41: 
10, &e. Notice the similarity of the Apostle’s reason- 
ing here with that of our Saviour, Matt. 6 : 31-33. 

V. 6. τά The whole of this verse is an exact 
quotation of the Sept. rendering for Ps. 118:6 (in the 
Sept. Ps. 117:6). It may be read so as to make the 
pronoun either interrogative or indefinite (either τέ or 
z?), and the same is true of the original of the Psalm ; 
although the Masorets have pointed it interrogatively : 
‘T will not fear what man shall do unto me;’ or, ‘I 
will not fear ; what will man do unto me?’ Compare 
Rom. 8:31, “If God be for us, who can be against 
us 2” 


' ~ « c ~ ef > ΄ 
7 Μνημονεύετε τῶν ἡγουμένων ὑμῶν, οἵτενες ἐλαλη- 
~ \ , - - ἃ ~ 
σαν ὑμῖν τὸν λόγον τοῦ ϑεοῦ ὧν ἀναϑεωροῦντες 
» ~ » ~ ~ \ , 
THY ἔκ βασεν τῆς αναστροφῆςΣ, μεμεῖσύε THY πιστεν. 


oo 


) - ταῖς Ἢ ΗΜ , c " 7 x > 

Inoovs Χριστὸς χϑὲς καὶ σημέρον ὁ αὐτὸς, καὶ εἰς 
me ~ U εν οὔ ‘ 

9 rove αἰῶνας. AwWayaig ποεκίλεες καὶ Ssvucs μὴ 

Ul « ‘ \ \ ‘2 ay 2 ~ \ 
παραφέρεσϑε" καλὸν yao yagere βεβαιοῦσϑθαε τὴν 
f > ra > , is 

καρδίαν, ov βρώμασεν, ἐν οἷς οὐκ ὠφεληϑησαν ot 
Υ͂ 

MEQLTATHOAVTES. 


V.%. τῶν ἡγουμένων. This means ‘spiritual lead- 
ers, here ‘teachers,’ in v. 17 below ‘rulers, and in v. 





HEBREWS, CHAP. XIII. Vv. 8. 467 


24, both. Here dead teachers are intended; as ap- 
pears from-the word Mryuorvevere, from the past tense 
of ἐλάλησαν, and especially from the following part of 
the sentence. Calvin well remarks on the remainder 
of the chapter, “Que sequuntur non tam ad mores 
quam ad doctrinam pertinent.” 

éx(aorv means literally ‘a going out, then ‘ exit, 
‘death.’ Or else, we may understand it as ‘issue,’ ‘ re- 
sult,’ i.e. in glory. It only occurs in the New Test. 
here and in 1 Cor. 10:13. God “ will with the temp- 
tation also make ὦ way to escape” (ἔκβασιν). The 
meaning first mentioned is best; and the reference 
seems to be to those holy preachers of the gospel, like 
Stephen and James, Acts 7:59, 60, 12:1, who died 
for Christ : ‘ Remember them and consider their deaths, 
in order to imitate their steadfastness in the faith.’ 
ἀναστροφῆς occurs in 1 Pet. 1:15, where it is cor- 
rectly rendered, as here, ‘conversation, ‘course of 
living.’ 

V.8. Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, x... Here ἔστε is to be 
supplied. The English version would seem to regard 
these words as in apposition with ἔκβϑασεν, making 
Christ “the end of their conversation.” This is not a 
possible construction, both because the words are in 
different cases, and because é ϑασες cannot be rendered 
‘end,’ in the sense of ‘object or aim. The verse is an 
independent proposition, plainly asserting the eternity 
and immutability of Christ. Compare Hebr. 1:12, 
Ps. 102 : 28, ‘Thou art the same.’ The verse seems to 
sustain a logical relationship to v. 7 and v. 9; furnish- 


408 HEBREWS, OHAP. XIII. V. 9. 


ing at once a reason for imitating the faith of those 
who, in previous generations, trusted in Him, and for 
future stability in doctrine. 

V.9. Adayais ποικίλαις καὶ ξέναις. Doctrines 
‘many and diverse among themselves, and foreign to 
the Christian system,’ are here intended. 

teoepéoeos, ‘Be not carried about. <A better 
sustained reading is παραφέρεσϑε, ‘be not carried 
aside.’ In its favour are manuscripts A, B, C, D, and 
many others, the Syriac, Coptic, and Vulgate versions, 
and some Fathers. 

καλὸν γάρ, ‘It is good’ So the word is rendered, 
and properly, in 1 Cor. 7:1, 26, 9:15. It is opposed 
here to οὐκ ὠφελήϑησαν. The sentiment is, ‘It is 
good (profitable) to be confirmed in the grace of the 
new dispensation, and unprofitable to be entangled 
again with the meats and drinks of the old’ χάρετε is 
opposed to βρώμασεν, which are among the ddazais 


Sevaic. 


10 Ἔχομεν ϑυσιαστήριον, ἐξ ov φαγεῖν οὐκ ἔχουσεν 
11 ἐξουσίαν οἱ τῇ σκηνῇ λατρεύοντες. Ὧν γὰρ εἰςφέ- 
ρέταε ζώων τὸ αἷμα περὶ ἁμαρτίας εἰς τὰ ἅγεα 
διὰ τοῦ ἀρχεερέως, τούτων τὰ σώματα κατακαίε- 
12 τας ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς" διὸ καὶ Ἰησοῦς, ἵνα 
ὡγεώσῃ διὰ τοῦ idiov «ἵματος τὸν λαόν, ἔξω τῆς 
18 πύλης ἔπαϑε. τοίνυν ἐξερχωμεϑα πρὸς αὐτὸν 
ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς, τὸν ὀνειδισμὸν «τοῦ φέρον- 
14 τες, (οὐ γὰρ ἔχομεν ὧδε μένουσαν πόλεν, ἀλλὰ 





HEBREWS, CHAP. ΧΊΙΙ: vv. 10, 11. 469 


15 τὴν μέλλουσαν ἐπεζητοῦμεν ) δὲ αὐτοῦ οὖν ava- 
φέρωμεν ϑυσίων αἰνέσεως διαπαντὸς τῷ ϑεῷ, TOUT 
ἔστε, καρπὸν χειλέων ὁμολογούντων τῷ ὀνόματε 
αὐτοῦ. 


V. 10. ϑυσιαστήρεον. Most commentators call 
this a metonymy for ϑυσέαν, but incorrectly, as may 
be proved from the succeeding words ἐξ ov φαγεῖν. 
ov obviously refers to ϑυσεαστήρεον, and if this meant 
‘victim,’ and in conformity with that meaning the fol- 
lowing words meant ‘ to eat of the victim, the preposi- 
tion would not be used ; because such a verb as φαγεῖν 
would govern the genitive in this sense without a pre- 
position. See Winer’s Id. New Test. $30. 5, p. 160. 
The meaning is, ‘We have an altar’ (as well as the 
Jews), in a figurative sense, of course; viz. that on 
which Christ offered up himself a true and efficacious 
sacrifice. This verse, then, is explicative or confirma- 
tory of the preceding: ‘It is better to participate in 
Christian grace, than meats of Jewish sacrifices. Our 
exclusion from the latter is no evil in comparison to 
that exclusion from the former (the results and pur- 
chase of the divine sacrifice) which Jews bring upon 
themselves by their Jewish exclusiveness. For the 
adherents of the old ritual have no interest in the 
benefits of the new dispensation. This having been 
set up, that is abolished and dead.’ 

V.11. Ὧν γάρ, x.r.4. This verse and the follow- 
ing give the reason of vy. 9,10. The former sacrifices 
were mere types: agreeably to their import (4:0, ν. 


470 HEBREWS, CHAP. XIII. vy. 13-15. 


12), Christ had made the true expiation for sin by his 
blood without the gate. The Levitical regulations 
here indicated, may be read in Levit. 4: 12, 21, 6: 30, 
16:27. The bodies of the animals to which sin was 
typically imputed were ceremonially polluted, and 
were therefore destroyed in an unclean place without 
the camp. Golgotha was a polluted place without 
the circuit of the city walls, and thither the Jews led 
Christ for crucifixion as an unclean person. 

V. 18. τοίνυν. The Apostle designedly gave 
prominence to this fact set forth in the type, that 
Christ suffered without the gate, to prepare the way 
for his exhortation: ‘If Christ our Lord was willing 
to die for us this shameful death, at a polluted place, 
excluded as an unclean thing from the city; surely 
we should be willing to follow lfim in that exclusion 
(ἐξερχώμεϑα πρὸς αὐτὸν ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς), and 
to bear his reproach,’ 

τὸν ὀνεεδισμὸν «αὐτοῦ. Compare the same words 
in 11:26 above. The words may mean, ‘ whatever 
reproach His service may bring upon us,’ or more prob- 
ably, according to Winer (Id. New Test. $30. 2. (b), 
note, p. 153), ‘the reproach which He suffered, i. 6. 
the same kind of reproach. The practical truth here 
stated may be well illustrated by Matt. 10:38, 16: 
24, Καὶ ὃς ov λαμβάνει τὸν σταυρὸν αὑτοῦ, καὶ ἀκο- 
λουϑεῖ ὀπίσω μου, οὐκ ἔστε μου ἄξεος. 

V.15. dé αὐτοῦ οὖν. The conjunction refers to 
the scope of the whole passage from vy. 9 to 14. The 
sacrifice of praise and profession of service and fidelity, 


τριάντα ἃ νιν HAP. XEN Sy να lilies 411 


the only offering under the New Test. after Christ’s 
perfect. sacrifice, js to be offered through His media- 
tion. All that has been said of the value of an inter- 
est in His sacrifice, and of His condescension and love 
in making it, should prompt us to this thank-offering : 
‘Let us therefore offer to God perpetually the sacrifice 
of praise through Him, that is, the fruit of lips that 
confess to (make a thankful and honourable avowal 
of ) His name.’ 


16 Τῆς δὲ εὐποείας καὶ κοενωνίας μὴ ἐπελανϑανεσϑε; 

AT τοιαύταις γὰρ ϑυσέαες εὐαρεστεῖταε ὃ ϑεός. Πεί- 
ϑεσϑε τοῖς ἡγουμένοις ὑμῶν, καὶ ὑπείκετε" αὐτοὶ 
γὰρ ἀγρυπνοῦσεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν, ὡς λό- 
γον ἀποδώσοντες" ἵνα μετὰ χαρῶς τοῦτο ποεῶσε, 
καὶ μὴ στενώζοντες " ἀλυσιτελὲς γὰρ ὑμῖν τοῦτο. 

18 Προςεύχεσϑε περὶ ἡμῶν" πεποίϑαμεν yao, ore 
καλὴν συνείδησεν ἔχομεν, ἐν πᾶσε καλὼς ϑέλοντες 

19 ἀναστρέφεσϑαε" περισσοτέρως δὲ παρακαλῶ τοῦτο 
ποιῆσαε, ἵνα τάχεον ἀποχατασταϑῶ ὑμῖν. 


V.1%. τοῖς ἡγουμένοις. With the general sense 
of ‘spiritual leaders,’ this phrase means here, ‘Church 
rulers.’ 

αὐτοὶ yao ayoumvovely ... ἵνα μετὰ χαρᾶς τοῦτο 
ποιῶσε... ἀλυσετελὲς γάρ. The logical dependence 
of these clauses is variously exhibited by different in- 
terpreters. It is simplest and best to understand all 
that follows the injunction as reason for it: ‘Obey your 
spiritual rulers, for they watch over your souls, &e. 


472 HEBREWS, CHAP. XIII. v. 19. 


(Again, obey your spiritual rulers) in order that they 
may give their account of you with joy, and not groan- 
ing; (and obey your spiritual rulers) for such a sor- 
rowful reckoning for your souls were unprofitable for 
you.’ 

V.19. ἀποκατασταϑῶ. The verb does not de- 
termine the cause of the detention, whether imprison- 
ment, sickness, &e.; for its usage would allow of either 
of them. It is most reasonable to suppose that the 
cause was the first, and that this Epistle was written 
by Paul from his captivity in Rome. The words of 
v. 22 favour this; for they seem to imply that the 
author was then at the same place with Timothy. 
And the subsequent words, “ They of Italy salute you,” 
show that place was somewhere in Italy, most proba- 
bly in Rome, where Christianity first and most pre- 
vailed in that region. The clear references to Paul’s 
captivity in Rome, made in Phil. 1: 18-19, 26, and in 
Philem. 1, 22, give great plausibility to the statement 
that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written by the 
same author, about the same time, and from the same 
captivity, with these. The probability is greatly in- 
creased by the fact that when Paul wrote the Epistle 
to Philemon, Timothy was with him. 


20 Ὁ δὲ ϑεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης, ὁ ἀναγαγὼν ἐκ νεκρῶν TOY 
ποιμένα τῶν προβάτων τὸν μέγαν ἕν aiuare δεα- 
91 ϑήκης αἰωνίου, τὸν κύρεον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν, καταρ- 
τίσαε ὑμᾶς ἐν παντὲ ἔργῳ ayado, εἰς τὸ ποεῆσαε 


HEBREWS, CHAP. XIII. vv. 20-22. 473 


A , 2 ~~) © ~ ? GC ln iS a7 
τὸ ϑέλημα αὐτοῦ" ποιῶν ἐν ὑμῖν τὸ εὐάρεστον 
Ἴ [2 c ~ <a ~ z ~ ΠΡ: Iu > 
évantov αὑτοῦ δεὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ" ᾧ ἡ δόξα εἰς 
\ ~ = Ξ ἢ Γ 
τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν aiwvey! ‘Auny. 


ν. 20. ἐν αἵματι. This preposition signifies here 
that with which He was provided or attended. It 
comes therefore very near to the sense of δεὼ in 9:12 
above (δεὰ τοῦ idiov αἵματος), which we interpreted 
as signifying with in the sense of ‘equipment.’ Com- 
pare Winer’s Id. New Test. $52. (a), p. 809, with 851. 
(i), p. 806. 

V.21. ᾧὴ δόξα. The relative here is most natu- 
rally referred to Χρεστοῦ, as the immediate antecedent. 
Others, with a Socinian intent, refer it to d&sd¢ as 
the principal subject. A similar difference of opinion 
may exist as to the similar clauses in 1 Pet. 4:11, 
2. Pet. 3:18. 


22 Παρακαλῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, ἀνέχεσθε τοῦ λόγου 
τῆς παρακλήσεως" καὶ γὰρ διὰ βραχέων ἐπέστειλα 
23 ὑμῖν. Τενωσκεέτε, τὸν OE ελφὸν Τεμόϑε ον ἀπολε- 
λυμένον, μεϑ οὗ, ἐὰν τάχιον ἔρχηται, ὄιψομαε 
24 ὑμᾶς. ᾿σπάσασϑε πάντας τοὺς ἡγουμένους ὑμῶν, 
καὶ πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους. ᾿Ασπάξζονταε ὑμᾶς οἱ 
25 ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰταλίας. “H χάρις μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν. 
μην. 


V.22. διὰ βραχέων. To this most supply λόγων 
(with brief words). That is, his Epistle is brief, con- 
sidering the greatness of its topics and occasion. A 


414 HEBREWS, CHAP. XIII. vv. 28-25. 


similar phrase is used by Peter, 1 Pet. 5:12. Itis 
perhaps still better to supply χρόνων, so as to make 
the author’s meaning, ‘I have sent it to you with brief 
time,’ 1. 6. ‘hurriedly. Of this we have two examples 
in Dio. Cass. Hist. Rom. 86: διὰ βράχεος, and ἐν 
βραχυτάτῳ. 

V. 98. Τεμόϑεον ἀπολελυμένον. This is com- 
monly interpreted, ‘set at liberty;’ and so the word 
often means. But on the whole, it seems most reason- 
able to render it ‘sent away’ (a sense which the word 
has in Acts 13:3, 15:30, 23:22, &.), and to sup- 
pose that Paul wrote the Epistle during his confine- 
ment at Rome, whence Timothy had been recently 
sent on some short journey, which was not expected 
to occupy much time. The reasons are, that we have 
no other mention of such imprisonment of Timothy 
(though of itself this is not decisive); that Timothy 
was with Paul during his first imprisonment at Rome, 
as we learn from Phil. 1:1, Col. 1:1; that we learn 
from Phil. 2:19, 23, 24, Paul intended soon to send 
Timothy over into Greece; and that he certainly 
expected to be himself set at liberty and visit the 
churches in the east. (See Phil. 1:25, 26, 2:24, 
Philem. 22.) The reader is referred to Stuart’s Intro- 
duction to the Epistle to the Hebrews, $19. 

V.25. of ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰταλέας May mean either ‘ per- 
sons from Italy, present at the time with the writer 
wherever he may have been, or it may mean ‘ persons 
of Italy, and at the time in Italy. The latter con- 
struction is favoured by the examples of John 11:1, 


HEBREWS, CHAP. XIII. v. 25. 418 


“Ἕάξαρος ἀπὸ Βηϑανίας, and Acts 17:18, of ἀπὸ τῆς 
Θεσσαλονίκης Ἰουδαῖοι. The phrase is very common 
to designate persons of any place, country, party, &e. 
without reference to their locality at the time. The 
preposition ἀπὸ most certainly (from the examples 
just given) does not signify in this phrase, that the 
persons were absent from the place from which they 
received their denomination, any more than the prepo- 
sition of, in our parallel phrase, ‘men of Italy” For 
the reasons just given, on v. 23, the second of the 
senses mentioned above is most probably the one to 
be adopted here. See more fully Stuart’s Introduc- 
tion, §19, p. 127 seq. Winer’s Id. New Test. $63. (4), 
p. 397. As to the objection, that scattered Italians 
out of their own land could hardly send such Christian 
salutations, we cannot attribute to it any force; as we 
find such an instance in 1 Cor. 16:19, written from 
Kphesus. The construction of the sentence is illus- 
trated by Phil. 4:22, of ἐκ τῆς Καίσαρος otxias. 


THE END. 





a vito “ aay 1 
WE Corie ihe | core Saghe bere: Ny 
πο eee ιν tie νος pie. 
rie δε rity: Oe hen We ne 
eo aMiritece ὕ ἐν ΩΝ αὐλδεραϑφα τν oa ee 

‘a ee” ΡΝ Ty ὍΝ πο ToS cle φῆ we 
ἃ was Tr fobey, λ ὑ δῷ 4 λα μὰ fe ie YE τὲ 
. ἂψ ti ih} i ively Ph angel Ue ts emia 


. fi, ci 4 τὰ ‘ 
5 ANGE Pade Cio aah he: aetna 


, v 
7 ‘ ¢ Ἢ 


. “Ἐ}} ΟΣ ΤΣ Eden IVE mh: dix, Cpe eee + a: "ἢ 
ἐμ  οὴ ΝΣ Mu " vate er bee wi ἦν “an Lt ie 















ith 


δ κ Wag Be Ney ae ae 
+, PROT Biers FT ihe 


> 4 r " uf 
Νὰ ὙΠ Piss’? yr) 
1 


Ἢ 
iy 4 oe ὦ oan er. a ΡΝ 
᾿ ῃ bf Mee, ἈΝ ΜΝ ol Os. OA bP oes, Sen eat Pas 
ale “ὦ pipet . tj εὖ rt : " : ὰς ote αι ὩΣ " 

vie ἢ sil 1 j pag pe “1 νι: 
i 


᾿ ¢ 
ΜΝ ἱ ( iW SiS veegany ἘᾺΝ 
͵ & ’ 


᾿ ν᾽ Δ An δή οἱ ᾿ ht Ἢ ο δὶ i ‘a © 
ΣΙ } ΜῚ ᾿ ᾿ C ἡ ας 5 i) mad ΕῚ ἡ 8 φ 


4 ιῬ 
i 5 j 
‘ i 
τ - ὴ ῳ 
- 
‘ : t ~~ ' 
ς 
i . 
τ: (ἢ, 
' PA “ἰδῇ 
: wert 
: vr ᾽ν 
΄ 5 f ᾿ 
‘ é 
? (th ane 
ἜΝ 
, Pa Υ 
ΓῚ ‘i Δ 
ἂ, ι Our 7 
ΐ τῇ a > 1 
i gir Ἂ 
7 a 
ry ' 
rn ’ ’ ν 4 ¥ Noy ΓΙ 
ΓῈ ι } 
" 
4 ΟΣ = 
’ ‘ 
nab * 
be 
‘ 


Θ᾽ 


κλκν .λλλλλλλλλλλλλλαλλλλλλλαλαααλλλαλλλλλλλσσ. 


πε υννυυννον............... Vw www wor >" 





CATALOGUE OF BOOKS 


PUBLISHED BY 


ROBERT CARTER & BROTHERS, 


285 BROADWAY, NEW YORK. 





Abercrombie’s Contest and the Armor, 
Adam’s Three Divine Sisters, . δ 
Advice to Young Christians, . 5 
Alexander’s Counsels to the Yeung, 
Alleine’s Gospel Promises, . ὃ 
Life and Letters, . : 
Ancient History, 4 vols., . 5 





Anderson’s Annals of the English Bible, 





Family Book, . . 

Anley’s (Miss C.) Earlswood, a Tale, 
Australia, Loss of the Brig, -. ° 
Bagster’s Genuineness and Authen. 
Baxter’s Saint’s Rest, 3 Fees 
Call to Unconverted, . - 
Choice Works, . 

Bible Companion, with Introd. by Dr. 
Bible Expositor, = 3 ἂ 
Bickersteth on Prayer, . - . 
On Lord’s Supper, . - - 
Waters from Well Spring, . 
Blossoms of Childhood, . Ξ 














Blunt’s Coincidences and Paley’s Hore Pau- 


line, . ᾿ ‘ . 
Bogatsky’s Golden τ πσπτι 2 ° 
Bolton’s Call to the Lamb’s, . . 
Bonar on Leviticus, . aig oot We 
Bible Hymn Book, ° 
Man, his Religion and his World, 
Night of Weeping, . . 
Morning of Joy, . 5 We 
Story of Grace, - - . 
Truth and Error, . . - 
Bonnet’s Family of Bethany, . - 
Meditations on Lord’s Prayer, 
Booth’s Reign of Grace, 

Borrow’s Bible and Gypsies of Spain, 
Boston’s Four-fold State, . - = 
Crook in Lot, . δ . 
Brett’s Indian Tribes of Gzizma, . 
Bridgeman’s Daughters of China, . 
Bridges on the Christian Ministry, . 
On the cx1x Psalm, . . 
—— on Proverbs, . = δ 
Memoir of Mary J. Geanems: 
Works, 3 vols... . ° 
Broken Bud, (The) ὦ 
Brown’s Concordance, plain, 20; gilt, 









































Sufferings and Glorixs of Messiah 
On Peter, . - . ‘ 
Galatians, . - . δ 
Explication, . otis . 
Explication, 18mo., δ δ 
On Second Advent οὐ ie, 
Buchanan’s Comfort in Affliction, . 

















of Bible, . 


on the Discourses and Sayings of Christ 


? 


Φ 91 


. 


ιμ ὶθ μα μὰ 


0 
1 
2 
22 


50 
30 
31 





Buchanan on the Holy Spirit, . « . 
Bunbury’s Glory, Glory, &c. 
Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, 12mo, . 

Do do 12mo.,, gilt, . 

Do do 18mo., . 
Greatness of Soul, . 
Jerusalem Sinner Saved, 
Burns’ Christian Fragments, 
Parables and Miracles, 
Butler’s Works, 5 
Sermons, C δ . . 
ἜΤΙ, : 
Analogy with Wilson’ 8 Criticisms, 
Calvin’s Life and Times, 
Cameron’s Farmer’s elas 
Cecil’s Works, 
Original Thoughts, 
Remains and Miscellanies, 
Sermons, 5 . 
Memoir of Mrs. Hawkes, 
Chalmers’ Sermons, 
Romans, . 
Miscellanies, . 















































Evidences, . ° 5 δ 
Natural Theology, . : δ 
Moral Philosophy, . 

Commercial Discourses, - 
Astronomical do 

Charnock on the Attributes. 

Choice Works ς 
Cheever’s Lectures on Pilgrim’s Progress, 
Powers of the World to Come, 
Child’s Own Story Book, . - 
Christian Experience, 5 ‘ . δ 
Retirement, . : δ 





























Clara Stanley, Illustrated, . Ξ od 

Clark’s Walk about Zion, . : 
Pastor’s Testimony, - : ς 

-—— Awake Thou Sleeper, . . δ 
Young Disciple, . ὲ δ . 





Gathered Fragments, . “ δ 
Clarke’s Scripture Promises, . : : 
Claremont Tales, (The) . . : . 
Collier’s Tale, : = 
Colquhoun’s World’s Religions. . = 
Commandment with Promise, . 


Select Works, containing the above, 





Companion for Afflicted, Ist and 2d Part, each, 


Cowper’s Poetical Works, 2 vols, . . 
Cummings’ Christ Receiving Sinners, . 
—— Message from God, ᾿ 
Cunningham’s World without Souls, δ 
Cuyler’s Stray Arrows, . . . . 
Daily Commentary, 8yo., . . . δ 
Dale’s Golden Psalm, ὃ . δ . 





S 
Φ 


SSSSSSSSR 


Φ 


ἣν λλαλλλεφιαδοοδρδοννδνοννσσνδρ λον 


PUBLICATIONS. 


το 


D’Aubigné’s Reformation, 5 vols., cloth . 
























































CARTERS’ 


$2 


τι 
o 


; 
‘ Do do fine edition, . .3 50 
¢ Do do 8vo., 5 vols. in one, 1 50 
¢ Do do yol. 5, separate clo., 00 
¢ Authority of God,. . eee 25 
ζ Life of Cromwell, . . ὅ0 
m4 Germany, England, “end ‘Scotland, ; ae 
€ Luther and Calving . . es 99 
5 Davies’ Sermons, 3 vols., - . . . 9 00 
) Davidson’s Connexions, new edition, 12mo. . 1 00 
° David’s Psalms, 12mo.,_ . Η » 75 
δὴ Do do ἀο gilt edges, . Ξ 1 00 
ὁ Do do do Turkey morocco, . 2 00 
¢ Do do  18mo., plain sheep, e «i eo 
S Do do 48mo., sheep, - : 5 20 
Do do do morocco, . . 95 
Do do do gilt edges, . 31 
Do do εν. tucks, . ἃ 50 
Do do —_ Brown’s Notes, sheep, 50 
ὸ Do do do do morocco, 1 00 
6 Dick’s Lectures on Acts, .—- jan ce OO 
ὸ Theology, 1 γ0].. - . 4 . . 2 50 
ὁ Dickinson’s Responses, . . . . 1 00 
¢ Scenes from Sacred History, vec - 100 
¢ Dill’s (Rey. Dr.) Ireland’s Miseries, « 75 
2 Doddridge’s Rise and Progress, . 40 
Py Life Col. Gardiner, . weaned 
δ Duncan’s (H,) Philos. of the Seasons, 4 vols. gad 00 
¢ Life, ᾿ P . ‘ ° . 7 
᾿ Cottave Fireside, S095 5) i) a )« 40 
> Tales of Scottish Peasantry, . ° - 36 
2 (Mrs.) Memoir of M. L. Duncan, - 75 
¢ Memoir of G. A.Lundie, . . « 90 
5 —— America, As I Found It, ae 1 00 
) Children of the Manse, . ᾷ . 50 
ὸ Memoir of George B. Phillips, « 25 
ὸ (M. L.) Rhymes for my Children,. . 35 
¢ Edgar’s Variations of Popery,. - + «100 
Edwards’ Charity and its Fruits, 18mo., . 50 
¢ English Pulpit (The, . . + + +1350 
¢ Erskine’s Gospel Sonnets, Ξ “ον 
Evidences of Christianity, University of Va, . 250 
; Family Worship, Prayers for Every Day, - 3 00 
Panny andher Mamma, . . ο . 50 
¢ Far Off illustrated, . . 5. τι 9 50 
First Day of Week, Ismo., " 5 ‘ 25 
Fisk’s Holy Land, 12mo., . ᾿ " Ἢ 1 00 
Orphan Tales, Ε . . 25 
Fleury’s Life of David, . Ξ Ἂ ᾿ς (80 
Ford’s Decapolis, ee: 
Foster’s Essays on Decision of Character ee) 
ὁ ——— Popular Ignorance, τὸ 
Fox’s (Rey. Henry Watson) Life of, 1 00 
Frank Harrison, . . ὁ Ἂ ae) 
Netherton, 6 2 Ἂ ‘ 40 
Fry, The Listener, itlustrated, . 1 00 
—— Christ our Example, . . 7 
-- Do. Law, .- . . . ὁνδθ 
—— Sabbath Musings, . 40 
Scripture Reader's Guide, = 400 
ς Gaussen’s Parables of Spring, - - 40 
Geological Cosmogony, - . 30 
Gilfillan’s Martyrs, τρὶς and Bards ‘ 60 
Godinthe Storm, . ° . η... 35 
Goode’s Better Covenant, . « -4teabe 60 
Graham’s Test of Faith . . ‘ 30 


Gray’s Poems, illust., 8vo., gilt, $1 50; plain, $1 00 


Griffith’s Live while you Live, 


Haldane’s (Robert and James) Lives of, ϑνο,, . 200 





Exposition of Romans, , 
Hall’s Select Works, . » . 
Hamilton’s Life in Earnest, . 
Mount of Olives, . P 
Harp on Willows,. 
— Thankfulness, ‘ ° 
— Life of Hall, . . 
Happy Home, ° 

Life of Lady Colquloun, 
Royal Preacher, . 
Lamp and the Lantern, 
Life of Williams, . 
Hawker’s Morning Portion, . 
Evening do. ᾿ 
—— Zion’s Pilgrim, . . 
Hengstenberg on the Apocalypse, 


























Henry’s Commentary, fine edition, half calf, 





Do. plain do, 
Method for Prayer, . 











Daily Walk with God, . 








Choice Works, 
(Philip) Life and Times, 
Hervey’s Meditations, 





sheep, 


Communicant’s Companion, . 


Pleasantness of a Religious Life, . 


. 50 


3 
16 
0 


SRaASSSsss 


SSSSSSSSSsesss 


Hetherington’s Hist. of the Chara of Scotland, 1 50 





Hewitson’s Life, : . . 
Hill’s Divinity, . δ δ Νὰ 
(Rowland) Life, . a 
Historic Doubts, by Whately, . 





History of Puritans and Pilgrim Fathers, 





of Reformation in Europe, 
Hooker’s Uses of Adversity, 
Philosophy of Unbehef, 
Horne’s Introduction, . . 
on Psalms, 








Howard and the Prison World of Europe, 


Howe’s Redeemer’s idee Ε 
Howell’s Life, . . . 
Howie’s Scots Worthies, Ὁ . 
Huss (John) Life of, . ° Ξ 
Infant’s Progress, . . - 
Jacobus on Matthew, ° . 
Questions on Matthew, . 
on Mark and Lule, 

on John and Acts, . 
James’ Anxious Inquirer, . 
Christian Progress, 

True Christian 

.—— Widow Directed, 

Young Man from Home, 
—— Course of Faith, . ° 
Young Woman’s Friend, 
—— Christian Professor, 
—— Christian Duty, . 























—— Christian Father's sidities 


Jamie Gordon, 18mo., 
Janeway’s Heaven upon Earth, 
Token for Children, . 
Jay’s Morning Exercises, . ὃ 
Evening do . 











History of the Westminster Divines, . 


τὸ 


. 2 00 


Morning and Evening do. i. fine edition, 


LP SOLIS IOI I Eo ee NER Se PAYPAL IIIS 


1 


75 


RanaRssssssassss 


ῳ 


30 
75 
75 

































































- 
























































CARTERS’ PUBLICATIONS. 

Jay’s Christian Contemplated,. . . § 40] Morning and Night Watches, . . . $ 60 
Jubilee Memorial, . τ Ν ‘ . 30] Murphey’s Bible and Geology, . - - - 100 
Jerram’s Tribute to an only Daughter, . . 930 My School Boy Days, 4 Boe ον οὖ 
Johnson’s (Dr. Samuel) Rasselas, a Tale, . ou | My Youthful Companions, : : δ AE 
(Rev. W. A.B.) Lifeof, .  . . 100) Near Home, illustrated, . eet OD 
Kennedy’s Profession is not Principle, . - 30] New Cobwebs to Catch Little Flies, 5 - 50 
Jessy Allan, . . «© - + ~ « 25 |Newton’s (Rev. John) Works,. . . .200 
Anna Ross, . CP ENS τς See ey ee Memoir of M.M. Jasper, . Σ ΤΗΝ 
Father Clement, . . . « ~~ 30] Noel’s Infant Piety, . 3 oye WD 
Decision, = . . . 25 | Old Humphrey’s Works, 12 vols. each, 5 - 40 
Key to (the Assembly’s) Chtechizmn, ~. . 90] Old White Meeting House, ᾿ . πο 40 
King’s Geology and Religion, . a A . 75 | Olmsted’s Counsels for Impenitent, . Ξ ‘ . 50 
on the Eldership, - - . 50|OpieonLying,. . oh eM owe aU 
Kitto’s Daily Bible Illustrations, Morning Ser. 4 00 | Osberne’s World of Waters, - le ἐκ τ 
Do. do. Evening do. 4 00 | Owen’s Works, 16 vols., . Ξ ᾿ 7 20 00 
sostiSensesc 7 τ οὐ wt”) 11 on Spiritual Mindedness, . . . 60 
Krummaclier’s Martyr Lamb, . - +  « 40] Paley’s Hore Pauline, . 5 oS μὴ ον ἴα 
Pi abS νὸς - «+ . 40} Pascal’s Provincial Letters, . . tee 1000 

Last Days of Elisha, δὶ a ἢ Memoir of Jaqueline Pascal, 5 ° 
Last Day of Week, . - 5 τ 5 25 | Pastor’s Daughter, . Ὰ ᾿ 5 Ξ . 40 
Law and the Testimony, - : > 5 3 00 | Paterson on Catechism, . - 9 A - 350 

Leyburn’s Soldier of Cross, . < . 1 00 Pearson on Infidelity, 8vo., : - δ 
Life in New York, . 3 5 5 4 40 | Peep of Day, . τ - fb 5 oo 
Life of Vagrant, 5 . . 30] Phillip’s Devotional Guides. Ὁ 1 50 

Lighted Valley, Memoir of Miss Bolton, 2) aD Marys, Marthas, Lydias, Hannah and 
Line upon Line, - 5 . . 80 Love of the Spirit, each, . ὁ . 40 
Little Annie, Ist and 2d Books, eS ates aus Young Man’s Closet Tabrary, eee 
Little Lessons for Little Learners, . . . ὅ0 ΡΙΚο᾿Β True Happiness, . A . 5 . 30 
Living to Christ, τ . τ § A « FeO Divine Origin, 5 ᾿ ξ 30 
Lowrie’siMetters, 35. ml ςς 25 | Pollok’s Course of Time, 16mo., Ss te ave) pp erAMOU 
India, . hd ee δ . τὸ Do. ὍοΣ Ιδιποῦ ᾿ς. : - 40 
Luther on Galatians, . - 5 ‘ ἃ . 1 50 | —— Life, by Scott, 2 2 fn : «100 
Mackay’s Wyckliffites, . “ 5 7® | ——— Tales of Covenanters, 16mo., 6 cee 
Magie’s Spring Time of Life, 50 Helen of Glen, δ .- . ° . 95 
Mamma?’s Bible Stories, . - : . 50 Persecuted Family, = . . . 5 
Sequel to do. - . 30 Ralph Gemmel,_. . Ξ . oa 
Marshall, (Mrs.) My Friend’s ernie : . 85. Poole’s Annotations, cloth, d . . 10 00 
(Rey. Walter) on Sanctification, . 50 Do. half calf, . . 12 00 
Martin (Sarah) Life of, . . ᾿ 30 | Porteus on Matthew, δ - 0 3 . τ: 
Martyn (Henry) Life of, 60 | Powerscourt’s Letters, . . ὃ . . 75 
Martyrs and Covenanters of Scotland, ἢ 40 | Precept upon Precept, . . - . . 390 
McCheyne’s Life, Letters, and Remains, . 159 | Psalms in Hebrew, . : 5 : ‘ - 50 

Sermons, separate, . - 5 . 2 U0 | Proudfil’s Counsels to Young, . . . δ 
Familiar Letters, . 3 ᾿ . 50) Retrospect, The, : ὃ - 5 . 40 
Complete Works, . : 3 . 3. 00] Richmond’s Annals of Poor, 5 - : - 40 
McCosh on the Divine Government, : . 2.00 | ——— Domestic Portraiture, . δ . . 6 
McCrindell’s Convent, a Tale, . 6 ξ - 0 Rogers’ Folded Lamb, . . Ξ . . 40 
School Girl in France, . 50 Jacob’s Well, : s . ὦ 40 
McFarlane’s Mountains of the Bible, . 75 | Romaine on Faith, . ° ᾿ ὃ . ὃς 609 
McGhee on the Ephesians, 5 : τ 2. 20 Letters, . : c ‘ a . 60 
McGilvray’s Peace in Believing, . 5 | Rowland’s Common I Maxima; 5 Ξ Ἐ oe 1 
McLelland on the Canon and Interpretation, . 75 | Rutherford’s Letters, ὃ : . 1 50 
McLeod’s True Godliness, : - 5 . 60 | Ryle’sLiving or Dead, . . Ξ: - ye 
Meikle’s Solitude Sweetened, : 66 Startling Questions, 5 5 - οἴ ho 
Menteath’s Lays of Kirk and am 6 75 | ——— Wheat or Chaff, . . ΗΝ ἐγ" 
Michael Kemp, . i 40 oung Man’s Christian Year, F «15 
Miller’s Geology of the Haas Rock, 75 | Saphir, Philipp, Life of, . : . Ὁ 
Miller Roger, Life of, : ° - 30 | Schmid’s One Hundred Tales, itlustrated, -, 350 
Missions, Origin and History of, 2 : + ae Scotts-Hoxrce of Truth. τι mc Πρ τον 

Missionary of Kilmany, . Ξ ξ : 69 | Scotia’s Bards, 8vo., illustrated, . 2 . 
Moffat’s Southern Africa, . 75 | Scougal’s Works, . ° . en .. 40 
Monod’s Lucilla, 40 | Scripture Promises, . “ - Ξ ἃ « εὐ 
More (H.), Private Devotion, προς es 50 Truths, . : τ εἰ ge) 
Do. do. 32mo., 20 Facts, 32mo., illustrated, τι 
Morell’s Modern Philosophy, . . . 3 00 | Select Christian Authors,. . . . .200 
} Morning of Life, 5 4. ς iy οὐ νος 520 Works of James, Venn, ὅθ. . .1 50 


RA ARR DDD ΑΜ YOO 





wee rs eo ee 


OOOO ODO Os OO NG ee AE a NS Seeger 


LPL PLL PLP PLN PIF FSP PA FANRARAARAAARAAAN 


PE. LRAAAAALDAADAANLAANANY EAADADAYA 


- ~~ 


oe ) 





































































































ON PSNI NI as 
> CARTERS’ PUBLICATIONS. 
Serle’s Christian Remembrancer, . . ϑ 50] Taylor’s (Jane) Hymns for Infant Minds, $ 40 
Sherwood’s Clever Stories, a ᾿ . . 56 Limed Twigs to Catch vias ΠΝ =. pO 
Duty isSafety, . . ««* » a ὦ Rhymes for nee . - 80 
Jack the Sailor Boy, . ᾿ p . 25} Tennent’s Life, . - 5 πο": 
Think before you Act. . + +  « 5}! Theological Sketch Book, " 5 3. 00 
Short Prayers, . ͵ . . ᾽ + 15 Tholuck’s Circle Human Life, . ὃ “ὦ 30 
Sick Room (The), . Ξ . - 15] Three Months under the Snow, A 30 
an 8 (Mrs. L. M.) Water Drops, . . 15 Tucker’s Rainbow in North, . Α ee 
Girl Book, foo) ss ate ΟΣ gn 1 40 Abeokuta, or Sunrise in the Tropics, . 75 
Boys’ Book, . ᾿ a 4 - . 40) Turnbull’s Genius of Scotland, 4 . 100 
—— Child’s Book, ‘ 5 ἃ ‘ . 935 Pulpit Orators of France, &c., . 100 
— Faded Hope, . τ 7 ‘ Ὰ . 50 Turretine’s Works, . 10 00 
—— Letters to Pupils, . . . “ . 175] Tyng’s Law and Gospel, - 150 
—— Olive Leaves, A eee 75 Christ is All, ἡ ὃ0 
Memoir of Mrs, Ceok, . 3 Ε “ΠΝ Israel of God, > - ὃ . 150 
Simeon’s Life, . 2 00 | ——— Recollections of England, . - 100 
Sinclair’s Modern Accomplishments, se Christian Titles, PE ocr cage pelt ys τ: 
Modern Society, oy. «eC DD Lamb from Flock, - . 35 
— Charlie Seymour, . F Ξ Ξ . 80] Very Little Tales for Very Little Children, ας, 
---- Hill and Valley, 4 75 | Wardlaw on Miracles, : ς ΖΦ 
Holiday House, illustrated, 75 | Waterbury’s Book for Sabbath, 5 4 . 40 
Sinner’s Friend, “ . 95] Watt’s Divine Songs, “ : . 40 
Smith’s Green Pastures for the Lord’s Flock, - 100 | Waugh’s Life. . . Ὁ .. Ν Σ - 100 
Smyth’s Bereaved Parents Consoled, 75| Week,The, . . Oe ΡΝ 
Songs in the House of My Pilgrimage, 75 | Whately’s Kingdom of Christ, ‘ . sie 
Sorrowing yet Rejoicing, 32mo., . ᾿ . 80 White’s Meditations on ἘΠΕῚ ὃ . . 40 
Spring’s Memoir of H. L. Murray, . A - 150 Believer, 3 δ . e ς΄ ἊΝ 
Stevenson’s Christ on Cross, 75 Second Advent, . : Ε Ρ ΕΝ 
Lord our Shepherd, . τ , - 60 (H. K.) Works, . - 150 
Stories on Lord’s Prayer, . A 5 . « 80 Whitecross’ Anecdotes on the Catechism, 30 
Stuckley’s Gospel Glass, 5 ᾿ 75 | Wilberforce’s Practical View, . . . . 1 00 
Sumner on Matthew and Mark, . . . 175/| Williams’ Life. ©. . §. = . .100 
Symington on the Atonement, 5 . 75] Willison onSacrament, . < . 50 
Taylor’s (Isaac) Loyola, . = A . 1 00 | Wilson’s Lights and Shadows, . “ 75 
Natural History of Enthusiasm, : 75 | Wine and Milk, . 25 
(Jeremy) Sermons, : A . 1 50 | Winer’s Idioms, ᾿ 4 A 2 50 
(Jane) Life and Correspondence, r 40 | Winslow on Declension, . - ᾿ ~ 60 
Contributions of Q. Q., 2 3 . 100 Midnight Harmonies, . ᾿ 5 a 
Display, a Tale, . ᾿ ὸ . . 30 γνοοάτγι 5 Shades of Character, . . 150 
Mother and Daughter, . : τ . 30. Wylie’s Journey over Prophecy, . ᾿ δας. 
Essays in Rhyme, . ᾿ - Ἀ 30 | Young’s Night Thoughts, J6mo.,_. . - 100 
Original Poems, Δ 40 Do. 18mo, ς Ὁ. . 40 
rr p> = 





ADDENDA. 


Africa and America Described. By the author 


of the “ Peep of Day.” 16mo 73 
Ballantyne (R. H.) Mabel Grant; a Highland 

story. I8mo. 50 
Bonar (Rey. Horatius) The Eternal Day. 18mo. 50 


Brown (Dr. John) Exposition of the Discourses 
and Sayings of Christ. New edition, 2 vols. 
8vo. . . ᾿ . 400 

Charles Roussel ; 3 of, "Honestey and Industry. 
By the author of “ Three Months Under the 
Snow.” 18mo. . 

Cheever (Dr.) The Right ‘of the Bible in the 
Common Schools. 16mo. 

Family Prayer. By the author of the “ Moraing 
and Night Watches.” 16mo. . τὸ 

Jay (Rev. Wm.) Female Scripture Characters. 
Royal l2mo. . . 


Berri oOOOOOOO™—""” ΑΝ ΑΝ Δ 


Jay (Rev. Wm.) Morning and Evening Exer- 
cises. New ed., on large type, 4 vols. 12mo. $4 

Kitto. Daily Bible Illustrations; Now com- 
pleted. 8 vols, 12mo. . ° Ὁ 

Quarles’ Emblems, Divine and Moral. 16m0. 
Illustrated. . 

Scott (Rev. W. A., D. 'D.) Daniel a Model see 
Young Men. Bro. Ἶ 

Self Explanatory Bible, with the References 
printed out at length, Half calf $4.50, Mor- 
occo $6.00, Morocco gilt $6.50. 

Vara; or the Child of Adoption, An original 
tale of great beauty and interest. 12mo,  . 1 00 

Woodcutter of Lebanon, and Exiles of Lu- 


00 
00 


cerna, By the author of “ Morning and 
Night Watches.” 18mo. ° ° ee a 
. L 00 |Words of Jesus. By the same author. 16mo. 40 





| 
: 


| 


; 
: 





—— ΝΞ 
Ἴ 


᾿ 
᾿ 
τοι. 





MAA 


1 101 


DATE DUE 





φ» 
τ» 


- Γῳ 
- ᾿ 
Ξ 








τς 


aoe 


=— 


Soe 


ee 


a 


Se 


Sei 


2 


= 








